Inconsistent Ramblings

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:07:58 GMT

Just a quick update of the book list. *= new entry

Doesen't look like I will be able to read all of these come the new year... But I CAN SURE AS HELL TRY!!!

Books to read
Empire to Umpire by Norman Hillmer
The war of the world by Nial ferguson
Who killed the canadian military? by J.l.Granatstein
The Krimean war by Alexis Troubetzkoy
The inquisition by Micheal baigen and Richard leigh
1424:the year a magnificent chinese fleet sailed to italy and set of the rainaissance by gavin menzies
what stalin knew: the enigma of barbarosa by david Murphy
The death of yugoslavia by laura sibler and allan little
The last kingdom, by Bernard Cornwell
1917 russia's year pf revolution by roy bainton
The greatest battle by andrew nagorski
Lennin: a biography, by Robert Service.
The Decline and Fall of the British Empire 1781-1997, by Piers Brendon
Caesars of the wilderness, by Peter c.Newman
You or Someone Like you, by Chandler Burr
Rules of Vengance, Christopher Reich
Devil may care, by Sebasian Faulks imitating Ian Fleming
Young Stalin, by Simon Sebag Montefiore
What the Dog saw by Malcom Gladwell*

and the books I've read since the new year

I AM AMERICA (and so can you) by Stephen Colbert
World War Z, by Max Brooks
Hitler and churchill by Andrew Roberts
A city of thieves, by David Benioff
The Balkans:Nationalism,war, and the great powers, 1804-1999 by misha glenny
The Myriad: Tour of the Merimack #1 R.M. Meluch
Wolf Star: Tour of the Merimack #2 R.M Meluch*
The Sagitarius Comand: Tour of the Merimack #3 R.M Meluch*
The Britanica Guide to Russia, By the Encyclopedia britanica.
1421:the year china discoverd the world by gavin menzies
When the Devil Dances By John Ringo
Watch on the Rhine by John Ringo
Child 44 by Tom Smith
A storm of swords by R. Marten
Fatherland by Robert Harris
A hymn before battle by John Ringo
Gust Front By John Ringo
The russian revolution: a very short introduction by S.A.Smith
Brisinger by christopher paolini
Fighting in spain by George Orwell
God is not great, by christopher hitchens
Dracula(graphic novel)
The prince by niccolo machieveli
The white tiger by aravind adiga
The scourge of god by S.M Stirling
Coulours in the Steel, by K.J.Parker
Belly of the Bow, By K.J. Parker*
A shadow in summer, By Daniel Abraham
Putin's Russia, by Anna Politkovskaya
The Post American World, By Fareed Zakaria
Fathers and Sons, by Ivan turgenev

An Essay on Russian Foreing Policy .

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:01:04 GMT

Russian Foreign Policy

A Literature response

Patrick Cloutier

Russian foreign policy post Yeltsin has largely been dedicated to ensuring sovereignty and maintaining its status as a great power. Russia has been opposed to normative policies, that is the harmonizing of laws and policies between states. Russia's opposition has been largely based on its belief that such harmonization would constitute the surrender of sovereignty and be counter to its interests. Russia's opposition to harmonization efforts is not an indication of an aversion to co-operation. Russia remains very much interested in co-operation with other powers, indeed it promotes a multipolar world. However Russia also does not wish to become too close to any one power or be dictated to. Russia's foreign policy reflects its goals of forging an independent path, working with other powers when it suits them and not swearing firm allegiance to any one group. This policy is not necessarily confrontational with the west. However its very nature of independence will cause Russia to occasionally come into conflict with the west when their interests do not align. This essay will show the literature on the subject by and large agrees, that Russia is not belligerent towards the west and that quite often western moves are provocative to the Russian establishment. The focus will be on Deverre's article “Russian Foreign Policy and the Global Political Environment” and the different authors take on the matter.

Recent Russian foreign policy has been largely based on attempts to ensure Russian sovereignty and security, in the face of perceived provocations and demands from the west. Deverre states that Russian foreign policy is formed by its perception of the states around it of being unstable and seeing this as a threat to Russian security. The Russian response has been to cease “the repudiation of further unilateral concessions or ceding sovereignty” (Averre 2008). Deverre goes on to say that Russian movement away from convergence with international norms is viewed in the west as confrontational. Deverre disagrees saying that confrontation is “case-specific and largely stems from the legitimate pursuit of its interests based on long-held principles.” (Aeverre 2008), this is a view shared by other authors such as Haukalla who wrote “Russia has come to view the European Union’s policies, even if well meaning, as overly intrusive and unwanted encroachments on its sovereignty” (Haukkala 2008). Haukalla's comment was in reference to Russia's reactions to the EU's “European Neighborhood Policy” which hopes to entice nations close to the EU to follow EU policies without actually joining the EU (Haukalla 2008). To Russian sensibilities the ENP (European Neighborhood Policy) was insulting, as it suggested Russia was inferior. ENP basically sets out policy objectives for countries to meet in order to receive trade deals with the EU. Russia objected to the unilateral nature of the policy as well as took umbrance to the suggestion it was equivalent with other ENP nations such as morocco or Moldova (Haukalla 2008). While Russia has rejected the ENP it has not rejected the idea of cooperation with the Europeans. The Russians would rather a more equal co-operation one with compromise from both ends rather than purely from Russia. The sort of co-operation the Russians would want is limited so as not to tie them down, something which is seen as threatening Russian sovereignty (Browning 2008). Current Russian foreign policy is primarily reaction to western moves, which have been viewed as threatening to Russian sovereignty. As a result Russia has responded with increased belligerence and active seeking out of partners other than those in the west.
Russia’s decision to reject western proposals for unilateral homogenization of policy and instead demand that any change in policy be the result of mutual co-operation reflects their view of the world as an increasingly multipolar world. Russia is increasingly finding it can get what it wants by working with actors other than the west, while the west remains important it is no longer all important. Evidence of Russia’s belief in the multipolar world can be seen in its co-operation with the other BRIC countries and in the Shanghai pact (Averre 2008). In Russia’s view the need to accommodate the west is declining. This is reflected in the broad consensus in Moscow that Russian foreign policy has been successful, despite tensions with the west. The Russian view is that the emerging nations are more important. Subscribing to this view it could be argued that Russian foreign policy has indeed been successful as evident in its increasing role in international organizations and closer ties with the developing world (Monoghan 2008). Russia’s actions come from an unease at the many unilateral actions undertaken during the Bush years, such actions have caused various states to edge away from the hard line coming from the US and search out nations more willing to negotiate (Monoghan 2008). As a result Russia was given a window of opportunity to establish ties with nations discontented with US unilateralism, which Russia argues is a major destabilizing force in the world. Russia’s message of promotion of national interests and support of stability (status quo) has made it popular with nations who don’t quite buy into the west’s view of things (Monoghan 2008). Russia has capitalized on the resentment generated by the lecturing manner of US diplomacy. By espousing respect for other powers largely irrespective of their national policies and approaching negotiations from at least the stated presumption of equality, Russia has made itself a seemingly more palatable partner than the US which will often make demands for domestic reform.

Russia’s opposition to western attempts at normalization of national policies is most marked in the CIS. Where Russia is critical of what it considers destabilizing support of opposition groups such as the various color revolutions (Monoghan 2008). However Russia’s criticism isn’t so much due to objection over the West meddling in sovereign nation’s affairs, its mostly because they are meddling where Russia see itself as having the sole right to meddle. As Kramer put in his article “Russian Policy Towards the Commonwealth of Independent States” Russia takes the following view “Russia, like other (great powers) in the world,” (Kramer 2008) . This explains Russia’s ability to work with nations such as China, Iran or Venezuela, they do not object to their influencing smaller nations in their area. Russia’s attitude towards the CIS has been to try and increase economic, political and military ties. In order to achieve this they have created or reinforced collective agreements; such as the Collective Security Treaty and the Eurasian Economic Community. Russia has also been content to work with undemocratic leaders within the CIS, as they seemed most likely to closely align themselves with the CIS (Kramer 2008). Russia’s support of anyone willing to support greater integration of the CIS is what has been the main flashpoint with the west. The west wishes to promote democracy in the region which Russia sees as contrary to its wishes of greater CIS integration (Sestanovich 2008). The Russians even go so far as to claim western efforts are deliberate destabilization efforts in order to keep Russia weak (Averre 2008) .
According to the literature Russia’s foreign policy has taken shape in three broad themes. Firstly the Russians are opposed to attempts by the West to establish universal norms concerning governance. The Russians counter that policy cannot be universally applied to all nations due to historical and cultural reasons and as such unilateral demands for conformity are unreasonable and even counterproductive. Secondly the Russians do not consider the Americans or the West to be the sole global leaders. Instead they subscribe to the view of the world as multipolar with many equal powers with respective areas of interests. This has meant that Russian policy makers do not consider it absolutely necessary to compromise with the west all the time, there are other equally legitimate powers to do business with. This understanding of the world means they expect to be treated as an equal power with a give and take on both sides. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly to the Russians is the view of the CIS as its primary region of interests, which other nations have little to no legitimate interest in. In order to secure this region of interests the Russians are actively seeking normalized policy among the CIS on economic and military matters. In the Russian view this is not contradictory with their opposition to Western desires to establish universal norms, due to Russia’s historical and cultural ties to the CIS. Russia’s foreign policy is designed to maintain its hegemony in Eurasia, resist Western efforts to bring its policies closer in line with their own and to support (but not ally) through co-operation powers other than the west.

Bibliography

Averre, D (2008)Russian Foreign Policy and the Global Political Environment. Problems of Post-Communism, Vol. 55 Issue 5, p28-39, 12p
Browning, C (2008)Reassessing Putin's Project Reflections on IR Theory and the West. Problems of Post-Communism, Vol. 55 Issue 5, p3-13
Haukkala, H (2008),Russian Reactions to the European Neighborhood Policy. Problems of Post-Communism, Vol. 55 Issue 5, p40-48,

Kramer, M (2008) Russian Policy Towards the Commonwealth of Independent States; Trends and Future Prospects. Problems of Post Communism. Vol.55 Issue 6, p13-19.

Monoghan,A (2008) ‘An enemy at the gates’or ‘from victory to victory’?Russian foreign policy, International Affairs 84: 4

Sestanovich, S (2008) What has Russia done? Foreign Affairs, Vol. 87 Issue 6, p12-28, 17p

Of neo-Nazis and books

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:16:29 GMT

A strange thing happened in the Rideau center, I saw two skin heads. Honest to god skin heads. They had their hair shaved close and bleached blond, they wore jack books and black and white camo pants. As I walked by them they noticed a mixed race couple and said to one another "thats fucking disgusting". I immediately thought they should be talking to a mirror. As I walked away however I realized they must be some of the loneliest people in Canada. They belong in a 1940's Hitler youth rally for Christ sake, it's pathetic.

So I read since my last update.

The Balkans:Nationalism,war, and the great powers, 1804-1999 by misha glenny

This was a very large book took me a couple months to read it, and in between I read a City of Thieves bellow.It's essentially a history textbook on the Balkans, written fairly well for a textbook, but still a textbook.

The Myriad: Tour of the Merimack #1 R.M. Meluch *
This was a fun read I picked up cause we had a crazy good deal going on at work (buy 3 get 1 free plus my employee discount of 30%). Most of the book is very entertaining and spends allot of time getting you to like all the different characters, then in the last bit he does this dumb time travel thing which alters history so none of the characters are the same. I was so annoyed I almost threw the book away.

The Britanica Guide to Russia, By the Encyclopedia britanica.*
A summary of Russia, I bought just cause I was curious to see what it had to say (it was 5$). It was somewhat amusing since it covers extremely important periods of history in like a paragraph or just a couple pages.Its commentary on modern Russia was useful however.

1421:the year china discoverd the world by gavin menzies

This was a fun read for a history book. He basically puts forward his theory that the Chinese circumnavigated the globe in 1421 a ways before the Europeans did it and then tries to back it up throughout the book. Personally I buy his arguments and think its quite plausible considering the evidence, (Chinese chickens found when europeans showed up, Europeans had maps despite never having been there ect.)

Walking Dead #10, What we become *
#10 in a seriously badass comic series, basically it follows a former cop and his family/friends trying to survive zombie apocalypse. It really goes into the how far humans will go for survival aspect and makes for super engaging reading.

A city of thieves, by David Benioff *

this is about two guys arested in leningrad during the seige. They are told by the local NKVD boss they must get him a dozen eggs in 7 days or he'll execute them. Very entertaining read, lots of dark humor.

Hitler and churchill by Andrew Roberts

An interesting book, he tries a little to hard to make every flaw a hidden gem in respects to Churchill, and any thing Hitler was good at a character flaw.

World War Z

Supper fun book, verry good read.

All the stars are books I've added to the list.

Books to read
Empire to Umpire by Norman Hillmer
The war of the world by Nial ferguson
Who killed the canadian military? by J.l.Granatstein
The Krimean war by Alexis Troubetzkoy
The inquisition by Micheal baigen and Richard leigh
1424:the year a magnificent chinese fleet sailed to italy and set of the rainaissance by gavin menzies
what stalin knew: the enigma of barbarosa by david Murphy
The death of yugoslavia by laura sibler and allan little
The last kingdom, by Bernard Cornwell
1917 russia's year pf revolution by roy bainton
I AM AMERICA (and so can you) by Stephen Colbert
The greatest battle by andrew nagorski
Lennin: a biography, by Robert Service.
The Decline and Fall of the British Empire 1781-1997, by Piers Brendon*
Coulours in the Steel, by K.J.Parker *
A shadow in summer, By Daniel Abraham *
Putin's Russia, by Anna Politkovskaya *
The Post American World, By Fareed Zakaria *
Caesars of the wilderness, by Peter c.Newman *
You or Someone Like you, by Chandler Burr*
Rules of Vengance, Christopher Reich*
Devil may care, by Sebasian Faulks imitating Ian Fleming*
Young Stalin, by Simon Sebag Montefiore*

and the books I've read since the new year

World War Z, by Max Brooks*
Hitler and churchill by Andrew Roberts
A city of thieves, by David Benioff *
The Balkans:Nationalism,war, and the great powers, 1804-1999 by misha glenny
The Myriad: Tour of the Merimack #1 R.M. Meluch *
The Britanica Guide to Russia, By the Encyclopedia britanica.*
1421:the year china discoverd the world by gavin menzies
When the Devil Dances By John Ringo
Watch on the Rhine by John Ringo
Child 44 by Tom Smith
A storm of swords by R. Marten
Fatherland by Robert Harris
A hymn before battle by John Ringo
Gust Front By John Ringo
The russian revolution: a very short introduction by S.A.Smith
Brisinger by christopher paolini
Fighting in spain by George Orwell
God is not great, by christopher hitchens
Dracula(graphic novel)
The prince by niccolo machieveli
The white tiger by aravind adiga
The scourge of god by S.M Stirling
Fathers and Sons, by Ivan turgenev

The Jaw surgery diet.

Sat, 30 May 2009 19:34:28 GMT

I've apparently lost 16 pounds since I got Jaw surgery.

what if....

Thu, 28 May 2009 11:59:12 GMT

You win 100 million dollars somehow... What do you do?

First you get Taxed 29% from the federal government, then you get taxed 24% from the Quebec government, you made 11000$ yourself(thats just a random number I put in you could put your own income if you want). 100 011 000 - 53% = 47005170.

1st I curse myself for not living in Alberta (they have a flat tax of 10%), then mope about losing 53% of my 100 million.

Eventually realize hey... I have 47 million! Time to get down to business.

I would put 25 million into maintaining wealth,
8 million for family
4 million for taking year off and trying to visit every country in the world.
2 million personaly try to turn around the economy.
1 million charity.

Under maintaining wealth,

I would invest about 10 million acording to financial advice
put the remaining 15 million into a saving account to incur interest, when I return from my globe trotting journey, use most of the money inside to build an apartment building in Ottawa.

Building would have an environmental roof, possibly top floor would be devoted to hydroponics (sod and plants) for small agriculture purposes. Whats grown would be sold in the market. Bottom floor would be made up of small business, as well as the lobby for the apartment building. The lower floors could be used for office space(like 2&3), raising actual living space further from noise of the city. The building would also be built to be as environmentally friendly as possible.

all the floors in between would be apartments, designed for middle income tenants.
I have no idea how much such a building would cost, possibly more than 15 million.

I clearly have to much time on my hands.

Pat

Booyashaka

Tue, 19 May 2009 05:34:50 GMT

So I've read a three more book, they were all pretty good. I think Child 44 was my favorite. It's a murder mystery based in post war soviet union, whats not to like? Fatherland is a murder mystery based in Nazi Germany after they won the war. It was a fun read, however the ending was pretty weak.Storm of swords is part of an excellent series, and was excellent.

so on wednesday I'm getting surgery on my jaw. heres what the're going to do, cut a chunk out of my lower jaw and push it back. then they're going to cut my upper jaw and push it forward. sounds like a party right?

I will get to spend two nights in hospital, I'm considering brining my laptop if they have wireless internet, otherwise I will just read. I've tried to picture what I'll look like after the surgery and I just cant picture it. I'm hoping it will make me a super babe magnate, this may be overly optimistic.
After the surgery I will have a whole month off work, and no obligations. I'm hopping to get some reading done , and to paint a good chunk of my warhammer stuff, expect photos.

Books to read
Empire to Umpire by Norman Hillmer
The war of the world by Nial ferguson
Who killed the canadian military? by J.l.Granatstein
The Krimean war by Alexis Troubetzkoy
The inquisition by Micheal baigen and Richard leigh
1421:the year china discoverd the world by gavin menzies
1424:the year a magnificent chinese fleet sailed to italy and set of the rainaissance by gavin menzies
what stalin knew: the enigma of barbarosa by david Murphy
Hitler and churchill by Andrew Roberts
The death of yugoslavia by laura sibler and allan little
The last kingdom, by Bernard Cornwell
1917 russia's year pf revolution by roy bainton
The Balkans:Nationalism,war, and the great powers, 1804-1999 by misha glenny
I AM AMERICA (and so can you) by Stephen Colbert
The greatest battle by andrew nagorski
Lennin: a biography, by Robert Service.

and the books I've read since the new year

When the Devil Dances By John Ringo (completed)
Watch on the Rhine by John Ringo (completed)
Child 44 by Tom Smith (completed)
A storm of swords by R. Marten (completed)
Fatherland by Robert Harris (completed)
A hymn before battle by John Ringo (completed)
Gust Front By John Ringo(completed)
The russian revolution: a very short introduction by S.A.Smith (completed)
Brisinger by christopher paolini(completed)
Fighting in spain by George Orwell (completed)
God is not great, by christopher hitchens (completed)
Dracula(graphic novel) (completed)
The prince by niccolo machieveli (completed)
The white tiger by aravind adiga (completed)
The scourge of god by S.M Stirling (completed)
Fathers and Sons, by Ivan turgenev (completed)

well there goese that plan

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:09:59 GMT

So I've totaly failed my plan to not buy books before I read all the ones on my list, and went and started a new sci-fi series. So from now on this will just be a record of books I intend to read and books I have read this year.

I did however finish Smith's "a very short intro to the russian revolution" it was quite excelent! for such a short book it's very thorough and didint leave much out. Of course this meant it mainly just offered an acount of what happened without much analysis, but he managed to make it not to dry. If you feel the need to read a book on the Russian revolution, but dont want to read a mother of a book, I recomend this one.

I also read Paoloni's "brisingr" this is the 3rd part to a Teen fantasy series. It is very obvious that it's a teen fantasy book, that's ok by me though I quite liked it, you would need to reed the other to books to read this one.

Now the books that broke the resolution. all by John Ringo "hymn before battle" "gust front" and im curently reading the 3rd book of the 9 book series " when the devil dances" this is a cheesy sci-fi series about alliens invading the earth. The humans are allied with these other pacifist aliens who dont have earths intrests in mind. THe series is action packed and light, I quite enjoy it.

Books to read
Child 44 by Tom Smith
Empire to Umpire by Norman Hillmer
The war of the world by Nial ferguson
Who killed the canadian military? by J.l.Granatstein
The Krimean war by Alexis Troubetzkoy
The inquisition by Micheal baigen and Richard leigh
1421:the year china discoverd the world by gavin menzies
1424:the year a magnificent chinese fleet sailed to italy and set of the rainaissance by gavin menzies
what stalin knew: the enigma of barbarosa by david Murphy
Hitler and churchill by Andrew Roberts
The death of yugoslavia by laura sibler and allan little
The last kingdom, by Bernard Cornwell
1917 russia's year pf revolution by roy bainton
The Balkans:Nationalism,war, and the great powers, 1804-1999 by misha glenny
I AM AMERICA (and so can you) by Stephen Colbert
When the Devil Dances By John Ringo
The greatest battle by andrew nagorski
Lennin: a biography, by Robert Service.
A storm of swords by R. Marten

and the books I've read since the new year
A hymn before battle by John Ringo (completed)
Gust Front By John Ringo(completed)
The russian revolution: a very short introduction by S.A.Smith (completed)
Brisinger by christopher paolini(completed)
Fighting in spain by George Orwell (completed)
God is not great, by christopher hitchens (completed)
Dracula(graphic novel) (completed)
The prince by niccolo machieveli (completed)
The white tiger by aravind adiga (completed)
The scourge of god by S.M Stirling (completed)
Fathers and Sons, by Ivan turgenev (completed)

oldest person in the world

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:08:02 GMT

Is aparently a soon to be 130 year old Kazakstani woman. She was supposedly born in 1879! here's the story i came across.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1164503/Is-woman-really-old-LIGHT-BULB-Oldest-person-world-set-celebrate-130th-birthday.html?ITO=1490

A memo to the Prime minister

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:48:45 GMT

For my Canada-US relations class we had to write a Breifing memo to the prime minister on an important issue on Canada US relations. My topic was theoretical; President Obama asks canada to extend its afghan mission past 2011, the Prime minister has asked you to offer advice on the matter.

Mr.Prime Minister

You have asked me to provide you with a briefing note, in order to better make a decision with regards to President Obama’s request. I have compiled a brief summary of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan as well as my own deliberations and recommended course of action.

As you are aware Canada came to be involved in Afghanistan shortly after the enactment events of September the 11th 2001. The attack on the world trade center caused the Americans to enact article five of the Washington treaty, which meant as far as NATO should be concerned, all of NATO had just been attacked (Cox 2007, pg.1). In very short order, a mater of two days, the then Chrétien government pledged support for American anti terrorism efforts and dispatched six warships to the gulf in order to assist the task force there (Cox 2007, pg.1). Soon after naval forces were deployed, Canada sent special forces and a light infantry brigade in support of American efforts in Afghanistan (Maloney 2007 pg.406). Canadian forces participated in several important operations with the goal of eliminating pockets of Taliban resistance (Bouldin 2003 pg. 270). In 2003 when the Americans launched Operation Iraqi Freedom much of their manpower was committed and they could no longer fulfill the leadership role they previously had. The responsibility was passed onto Canada, who sent an additional battle group with attached headquarters and special forces (Maloney 2007 pg.406).

Sever manpower shortages caused Canada to give up leadership of the mission in 2004. Following giving up its leadership role Canada also removed most of its forces except for some small military training units (Maloney 2007 pg. 406). In 2005 Canadian forces took over responsibility for Khandahar province under OEF command, what followed was a redeployment of Canadian assets to Khandahar. With assistance from an American task force they began a more aggressive reconstruction and development plan then had previously been in action. At the time Khandahar province had been under command of Operation Enduring Freedom, which had a different command structure then the North under ISAF’s responsibility. Canada made it an effort to begin the process of brining OEF under ISAF’s authority, both to bring NATO members south, and solve problems related to the divided command structure. Canada in order to facilitate such a transition, convinced NATO allies to come self and provide assistance, the British and the Dutch both sent troops south after significant domestic debate (Maloney 2007 pg.407). Prior to Canadian and other allied, American forces in the south had been extremely thin on the ground, with certain areas of the province remaining unpatroled. Provincial reconstruction had been limited and lacked direction due to a combination of problems. Canada’s first actions were reconnaissance of unvisited regions and focusing of reconstruction on building of afghan national capabilities (Maloney 2007 pg. 409). In 2006 Khandahar remained under OEF command, which placed emphasis on hunting and destroying insurgents rather then redevelopment. Canadian units chafed under OEF’s American command structures, as the two militaries follow different operational approaches. Canadian forces preferring to give broad orders trusting troops to take initiative, American forces give more specific and rigid orders. Canadian efforts were split between reconstruction and protection of aid agencies and the hunting of insurgents as ordered by OEF. Canadian forces were able to achieve their OEF orders, however as a result reconstruction efforts suffered. It is important to note that despite the reinforcements of 2005 coalition forces in the south were still extremely stretched. (Maloney 2007 pg.411) Drawing on limited coalition resources were operations using OEF forces for poppy eradication. Such operations were encouraged by US and British political motives and were a source of contention as Canada and the American military opposed such action as inappropriate and counterproductive (Maloney 2007 pg 411). Poppy production is the main economic activity in the south and makes up an estimated 37% of the afghan GDP (Holden 2007 pg.1). Any activity against poppy production allowed the Taliban to team up with producers to protect their interests. The primary concentration of eradication efforts was the British area of responsibility. Lacking armored transport and relying on helicopters, the British were soon bogged down by increased ambushes, and IED activity. As the situation worsened Canadian forces launched large scale assault on the Taliban in the region, perhaps encouraged by success against the British they engaged the better equipped Canadians and were destroyed. Following actions were less successful as insurgents then preferred to melt away rather then engage coalition forces ( Maloney 2007 pg 412-413). The increased military operations in the south led to widespread media reports, of increased casualties, and led to questions about the chance of success of the mission if Taliban continued to control whole regions. Further degrading public support were political parties jockeying for public opinion in a minority parliament, questioning setbacks and even calling for outright withdrawal. Such political opposition was encouraged by an extremely unpopular American presidency, which failed to recognize the significance in Canada of being involved in military rather then peacekeeping operations (Maloney 2007 pg.416) . Such criticisms have ignored much of the real progress which has taken place in Afghanistan. While the south remains volatile the northern sections of the nation have stabilized enough for GDP to more than double since 2002, health care is now available to nearly 85% of afghans compared to its near non-existence in the past, and some 5 million children are attending school 34% percent of them being girls (Casson 2007 pg.28). The criticism that more reconstruction efforts also ignored the need for security before reconstruction could occur, they also ignored the significant efforts and commitments of NATO and its allies which contributed sufficient forces to increase the south’s troop levels from as little as 1000 to more then 12500, of which Canada contributes 2500 . The increased conflict was not the result of a resurgent Taliban but an increased NATO presence confronting the existing Taliban one (Casson 2007 pg. 26).
The efforts NATO has put into training afghan security forces have started to bear significant fruit. With afghan forces conducting successful operations both with NATO forces and independently, discipline within the forces have also increased significantly with the aid of Canadian mentor programs. Not only has the quality of afghan forces increased their numbers have more then doubled since 2005 (Kenny 2008, pg. 47). The local population of Khandahar have increasingly also begun siding with the Afghan and NATO forces. Providing valuable intelligence on the location and production of IEDs, so valuable that Taliban have begun attack communication infrastructure to hinder reports. Canadian forces also have the best equipment in the region to deal with these threats. (Kenny 2008 pg. 49).
It is in this context of visible progress of Afghan capabilities, improvement in the afghan governments services, afghan economy, and afghan public support, that Canada committed to extending its mission to 2011 following the passing of a motion in parliament, but with 2011 as a hard deadline (CBC news 2009). President Obama has asked that Canada reconsider that deadline.

Options
In my opinion you have several options available to you Mr. Prime Minister
1. Inform the President of Canada’s position that Canada has fulfilled its commitment and will be withdrawing in 2011.
2. Inform the President that Canada will consider the matter depending on how the situation develops and make a decision closer to 2011.
3. Guarantee to the president that Canada will be extending the mission.

Considerations
When considering which course of action we should take, we should bear in mind several important factors. How would a unilateral decision to leave Afghanistan affect Canada-US relations? How will the Obama administration differ from the Bush administration on foreign affairs? What would domestic reaction be to a decision to extend the mission? Canada’s earlier commitments have been extensive so have our sacrifices in terms of personnel how should this effect our decision? How are we doing in Afghanistan should this affect our decision?
While on the presidential campaign trail, President Obama presented a somewhat mixed message with relation to the current situation. He condemned the Bush presidency for pursuing a unilateralist and arrogant foreign policy, suggesting that American foreign policy may now be more flexible and open to discussion. He also declared his presidency would seek to rally “NATO members to contribute troops to collective security operations, urging them to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization operations”, a clear reference to Afghanistan (Obama Campaign 2009). Obama’s more conciliatory attitude will allow him to acknowledge Canada’s commitments and accept Canadian withdrawal without an overt negative effect, especially in light of the domestic situation here in Canada, showing declining support for the mission (CBC 2008). It has also been very publicly established policy that the mission would be ending in 2011, reversing policy so strongly supported would be damaging (Day et all 2008 pg.6). A Canadian pledge to continue or increase aid, would certainly go a long ways to reducing the sting of a decision to leave in 2011. However Canadian approval for President Obama is incredibly high coming from him the request may be more acceptable to Canadians. However the image of bowing to a foreign president’s wishes in order to curry favor, would be incredibly damaging domestically and internationally.
Unlike the refusal to participate in Iraq, Canada ending its military commitment in 2011 is not a denunciation of American foreign policy. It was the Canadian government’s decision to not go to Iraq on principled reasons which most hurt relations with the United States. At the time Canadian politicians publicly questioned the validity of the mission, rightly or wrongly, this was wounding to the Bush administration and the American public at large that a close ally would be so publicly critical (Richter 2005 pg.478). Afghanistan is different; Canada is not condemning the mission, simply saying it has fulfilled its current military commitment, and that it will continue to help in a more civilian manner. Such statements would be much more acceptable to American political circles as well as the American public. Which would further discourage a decline of Canada-US relations in response; consider further that the Obama administration has already taken a conciliatory abroad with nations such as Russia and Iran, and a serious decline in relations seem even less likely (Reuters 2009).
Domestically the decision to unequivocally extend the mission would likely be disastrous. The reasons for this are the declining support for the mission due to its seemingly military nature(CBC 2008). Previous government promises to withdraw from military action in 2011,(Day et all 2008 pg.6) the nature of the current parliament would likely mean the opposition would pounce on such a significant policy reversal. This would not only be bad for your own government Mr.Prime Minister but for Canada as well. Such a debate would be extremely divisive with Canada’s military in the middle; a defeat of your government would almost certainly then result in reversal of your own reversal. A Canadian flip flop on the issue would certainly be much more damaging for Canada-US relations rather then a single statement of fulfillment of Canadian commitments.
Canada has sacrificed a lot during its participation in Afghanistan and has been involved since the very beginning. For the first time since Korea Canadian forces have been engaged in large scale military activities. Canadian forces have been fighting with valor and honor, once again showing their quality to the world. They have also paid a price, over 100 Canadian soldiers have given their lives attempting to accomplish their objectives, often with insufficient support or manpower (CBC*2 2009). As well as the significant financial costs of the mission estimated to total over 18 billion by the time the end of our military commitment in 2011 (Mathilakath 2008 pg.8). Does this then mean that in light of Canada’s sacrifices in Afghanistan it cannot in conscience leave before Afghanistan can sustain itself? It is a difficult question, but a valid one. The answer is that Canada will not be giving up on Afghanistan in 2011, it will simply stop fighting there. No serious political group in Canada has called for an end of Canadian aid, and development support, Canada will continue in this respect for a long time after 2011. 2011 is also two years from now and much can be done in that time, for example in just two years the Afghan army recruited, trained and equipped 20,000 additional soldiers (Kenny 2007 pg.47). NATO will also remain providing security for what could be an increased Canadian aid program. We must remember our soldiers sacrifices in Afghanistan, we can do that by not abandoning Afghanistan and continuing to offer them aid.
Recommendations.
In light of my considerations, I feel I must recommend that you pursue option one. It has been a publicly stated objective of Canada’s to withdraw its military commitment from Afghanistan by 2011. The Obama administration should be made to understand that the Canadian government simply cannot reverse such an important policy decision. Canada must continue giving aid and development funding to Afghanistan, to ensure that Canada’s sacrifices there are not in vain, as well assisting our allies in civilian capacities. Domestically an extension of the mission in light of the debate which occurred over the first extension cannot be considered as the results of such debate could be dire considering the current political situation. Despite the recommendation to remove Canadian forces from Afghanistan in 2011, Canada cannot allow the NATO mission there to fail. If this were to happen the blow to NATO’s reputation would be significant. If it were to become vital that Canadian forces be returned to Afghanistan I would recommend that Canada do so. As far as we know at the moment they will not be necessary and significant civilian contributions from Canada will be sufficient.
In practice these recommendations should take the following form.
-Restate Canada’s position that it has fulfilled it’s military commitment in Afghanistan.
-Make clear that Canada intends to continue or increase its current aid package to Afghanistan.
- Maintain small military units in mentor roles to continue training the afghan military
- Continue training of the Afghan police force and strengthening of Afghan institutions.
-Maintain a close watch of the situation in Afghanistan in case Canadian forces may one day be required again.
While it must be made clear that Canada will remove its forces from combat roles in 2011, it must be made even clearer that Canada is not giving up on Afghanistan. Those are my recommendations Mr.Prime Minister, I hope you find them of use.

Annotated Bibliography.
Day S, Emerson D, Mackay P, Oda B. “ Canada’s Engagement in Afghanistan.” Ottawa. Government of Canada, 2008.

This report in 2008 detailed the government’s position and objectives in Afghanistan. Was important to see the current policies on Afghanistan, existing policies would naturally have an effect on whatever decision the government would take.

Barbot V, Chan R, Dewar P, Goldring P, Khan W, Lebel D, Martin K, Obhrai D, Patry B,Sorenson K*, St-Hilaire C, Wilfert B, “ Canada’s International Policy Put To The Test in Afghanistan: A parliamentary Report; Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development” Ottawa, Library of Parliament, Jan 2008

This source provided useful background information which helped for the general direction of the briefing note.

Barbot V, Patry B, Chan R, Deschamps J, Dewar P, Goldring P, Khan W, Lebel D, Martin K, Obhrai D, Rae B, Sorenson K* . “ Canada in Afghanistan; Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs International Development” Ottawa. Library of Parliament, July 2008.

This report was useful for background information on Canadian aid in Afghanistan.

Khan S, Mathilakath* R, Rajekar A. “Fiscal Impact of the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan” Ottawa, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 2008.

This report was used to get some specific numbers for the total cost of the Afghanistan mission. The only source where I found a total cost estimate for the mission.

Banks T, Kenny C*, Tkachuk D, Day J, Mitchell G, Meighen M, Moore W, Ruth N, Zimmer R. “ How Are We Doing in Afghanistan ?: Canadians Need to Know.; Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence” Ottawa, Library of Parliament, 2008

This source was very useful it went into great detail the problems and challenges facing Canadian forces in Afghanistan. It also gave information on the general progress of aid and development efforts.

Holden M “ Afghanistan: Economic Activity and Policy challenges” Ottawa, Library of Parliament, 2008.

This report gave a good overview of the Afghan economy. It was the source for the importance of opium production in Afghanistan.

Yung J “Afghanistan: The Taliban” Ottawa, Library of Parliament, 2007

Provided a look at who the Taliban are and how they operate. Useful source for background look at the Taliban, however other sources were better.

Cox J “Afghanistan: The Canadian Military Misson” Ottawa, Library of Parliament 2007

This source was used in the background section, for its specific detailing of events after 9/11. It also backed up other sources version of events.

Barbot V, Chan R, Dewar P, Goldring P, Khan W, Lebel D, Martin K, Obhrai D, Patry B, Sorenson K*, St-Hilaire C, Willfert B. “Canada’s International Policy Put To The Test in Afghanistan: A Perliminary Report; Report Of The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.” Ottawa, Library of Parliament, January 2008.

Further information on Canadian aid efforts, wasn’t used as the briefing note concentrated primarily on the military question.

Bachand C,Black D, Blaney S, Bouchard R, Cannis J, Casson R*, Coderre D, Gallant C, Hawn L, Hiebert R, Martin K, Mcguire J. “Canadian Forces in Afghanistan; Report of The Standing Committee on National Deffence.” Ottawa, Library of Parliament, 2007.

This source was useful for recent information on Canadian military activities in Afghanistan for the background section.

Bouldin M (2003) “Keeper of the Peace: Canada and Security Transition Operations” Defense and Security Analysis, Vol.19 No.3 pg.265-276.

An article detailing Canada’s various military commitments from 1957-2003. Used for extra detail on Canada’s early involvement in the afghan mission.

Maloney S (2007) “Blood on the Ground : Canada and the Southern Campaign in Afghanistan” Defense and Security Analysis, Vol.23 , No.4, pg.405-417.

Useful article detailing Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan up to 2006, used in the background section, concentrated specifically on the military aspect.

Richter A (2005) “ From Trusted Ally to Suspicious Neighbor: Canada-U.S Relations in a Changing Global Environment” The American Review of Canadian Studies, pg, 471-502.

Used for insight on the effect of Canada’s decision not to go to Iraq, and why that event had such a negative effect on relations. I wanted to see if the reasoning behind leaving Afghanistan would be as offensive to Americans as the reasoning to not go to Iraq.

CBC*2 (2009) http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/casualties/list.html

A CBC record of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan. I used it to get an up to date number on casualties.

CBC (2009) http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/10/f-afghanistan.html

This is a CBC summary of the war in Afghanistan. It was used for information very recent events which occurred this year.

CBC (2008) http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/poll-afghan.html

A poll on Canadian public support on the Afghan war, was used in considerations, this seemed justified due to the current political situation.

Reuters (2009) http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5270K620090308?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10452

A Reuters’ article reporting on Hilary Clinton’s recent tour of the world reestablish diplomatic ties. Used as evidence of the Administrations conciliatory attitude due to overtures to Russia and Iran.

Obama Campaing (2008) http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/#diplomacy

An article on Obama’s campaign website which details his stated foreign policy goals while on the campaign trail. Due to the early point in time in which Obama would have made his request, I though it would be reasonable that an advisor would us it for possible insight into Obama’s policies.

(Names with “*” are the ones cited, or are the leading contributors of the articles)

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:40:06 GMT

Canada and Afghanistan

Presented to: Dr. David Gilles
Class# 3606B
By: Patrick Cloutier

Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan has many facets which all appeal to different themes within Canadian foreign policy. Afghanistan allows Canada to pursue a multilateral stance, through NATO and ISAF, while at the same time improving its position with the United States by participating. The various economic development and state building efforts in Afghanistan follow logically with international development assistance. The Afghanistan mission has been extremely controversial within Canada as well and this has had a heavy influence on how the now three different Canadian governments have reacted to the challenges there. Particularly in relation to the popular conception of Afghanistan as another American war similar to the deeply unpopular Iraq war. Canadian policy in Afghanistan is representative of Canadian foreign policy abroad. This essay will examine Canada’s various activities in Afghanistan and explore how they relate with broader Canadian principles, of international affairs.

Canada became involved in Afghanistan following the terrorist attack on the world trade center. NATO deemed the attack worthy of article five of the treaty, meaning NATO nations are to act as though the attack was against their own nation (Cox 07). Canada unequivocally accepted this interpretation and was quick to pledge support for the US response. When the Americans made the decision to invade Afghanistan in January 02, Canada was there with a commitment of 1200 soldiers (Cox 07). Canada’s initial commitment lasted only till July 02 after which point the soldiers were sent home, however Canadian soldiers were sent back Afghanistan in August 03, under ISAF and have remained in Afghanistan since (Cox 07). Invading Canada-US forces faced overwhelming success in their battles with Taliban forces, resulting in massive Taliban casualties, estimates of early Taliban loses in Kandahar put their casualties at around ten thousand (Yung, 07). Amazingly the Taliban were able to recover from their heavy loses, by retreating into the Pashtun regions of Pakistan and rethinking their strategy. In 06 the Taliban returned and focused much more heavily on insurgent tactics making extensive use of roadside bombs (Yung 07) . The ISAF nations realizing that they were perhaps concentrating to heavily on the military side of operations in Afghanistan singed the “Afghan Compact” which is an agreement to help Afghanistan develop three key areas “a. Security B. Governance, the rule of law and human rights C. economic and social development.” (Casson et al. 07) .

Canada’s decision to participate in the Afghanistan mission is the continuation of a policy of co-operation with international interventions. With the exception of Vietnam and Iraq Canada has participated in almost every international intervention since the Second World War. When North Korea invaded South Korea Canada was there, Canada participated in the first gulf war and in Bosnia. To Canada it is important to maintain a distinct and separate identity from the America, and as a result Canada has gone out of its way to participate in a wide range of international agreements. It is also important for Canada to keep good relations with the United States; as a result any initiative which can do both Canada will jump on. Afghanistan is one of these, a mission which is internationally supported and very important to the Americans.

Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations in the world, and has a GDP per capita of a little under 2000$ US (Holden 07) . Once Canada became involved in Afghanistan it didn’t take long for CIDA to begin handing out aid. Since 2001 Canada’s pledges of aid have grown to its current total of 1.2 billion$ , making Afghanistan Canada’s largest recipient of aid (Sorenson et all 07). Afghanistan’s economy faces many problems. Foremost are the incredibly disruptive effects of the insurgency and continued war. Lesser but significant problems are the lack of infrastructure, or governmental institutions. (holden 07). Due to the lack of government institutions, it is difficult to get hard figures on the afghan economy, which causes challenges when attempting to encourage development. Afghanistan’s economy is heavily tied to agriculture, with an estimated 80% of the afghan economy coming from agriculture (Holden 07). Afghanistan supplies 90% of the world’s opium supply, and consequently opium production is believed to account for about a third of Afghanistan’s economy (Holden 07). Opium is illegal in most of the world, this has led various members of ISAF to attempt to curb or limit opium production. The main producers are poor farmers, who plant the opium because it is easy to tend for and provides better returns then the alternatives (Holden 07). Unsurprisingly attempts to curb production have been very unpopular and the Taliban have been quick to use this to their advantage by protecting opium farmers, and giving them assistance. (yung 07)

Despite the challenges the international community has had success in improving the situation of the afghani economy. Since 03 the afghan economy has shown consistent strong growth, however with the current situation of the global economy it will remain to be seen if this continues (Holden 07). The IMF has been steadily increasing Afghanistan’s fiscal ratings, as the government continues to meet their guidelines. Afghanistan has also secured debt forgiveness from some of its largest debtors, such as Russia who recently forgave 10 billion in soviet debt (Holden 07 ). Canada hopes to achieve two things with its aid, to increase the afghan government’s legitimacy by funneling funding through them and develop the economy. Canada aid efforts are aimed at the improvement of afghan agriculture, due to its prominent role in the afghan economy. They will attempt to do this by helping the afghan government establish improved irrigation systems, as well as introduce hardier strains of grains which will better survive Afghanistan’s dry climates (Holden 07). By passing the funding through the afghan government the hope is it will build afghan capabilities by having them do the work, rather then simply doing it for them.

There are concerns that the aid that Canada and other nations are providing is either insufficient or inefective. A significant concern is that a significant portion of aid delivered by Canada is in the form of “rapid impact” projects. Such projects focus on providing immediate and obvious improvements, things such as footbridges or similar efforts. The problem with “rapid impact” projects is due to their rapid nature, often times locals aren’t properly consulted and the projects end up being of limited use (Sorrensen et.all 07 pg.6). It is a widely held opinion that insufficient amounts of aid are reaching Afghanis. This is despite the 1.2 billion dollars pledged by Canada. Reducing the effectiveness of the provided aid, most of the aid money is spent outside Afghanistan. If the money were spent in Afghanistan it would have the benefit of creating jobs and delivering aid to Afghans (Sorrensen et all. 07 pg. 4). The practice of passing aid through afghani government is also criticized. The critics point out that only a handful of afghani government ministries are effective. Not only does the ineffective afghan government reduce results, it also focuses aid away from the private sector, which is needed to nurture a sustainable economy ( Sorrensen et all. Pg. 5). Despite their criticism the critics do believe that CIDA should be the organization to continue spearheading Canadian development in Afghanistan. The overall perception was that CIDA was and is making some real progress in Afghanistan, but that they should focus their activities in different areas and increase them (Sorrensen et all 07 pg.7) .

While Canada’s actions and criticism of those actions have been discussed, little has so far been said about what the government intends to do. The government’s most recent intentions in Afghanistan were outlined in a government report “Canada’s engagement in Afghanistan”. Partially in response to the criticism against the Canadian mission, the government revaluated its priorities in Afghanistan. The government report on Canada’s new priorities in Afghanistan, are a continuation of previous policies, if more focused. The report sets out six goals.
“1. Enable the Afghan National Security Forces in Kandahar to sustain a more secure environment and promote law and order. 2. Strengthen Afghan institutional capacity to deliver core services and promote economic growth, enhancing the confidence of Kandaharis in their government. 3. Provide humanitarian assistance for extremely vulnerable people, including refugees, returnees and internally displaced persons. 4. Enhance border security, with facilitation of bilateral dialogue between Afghan and Pakistani authorities.
These Kandahar-centred priorities will be reinforced by two priorities to be pursued at thenational level:
5. Help advance Afghanistan’s capacity for democratic governance by contributing to effective, accountable public institutions and electoral processes. 6. Facilitate Afghan-led efforts toward political reconciliation.” ( Government of Canada 08 pg.1)

These goals are logical continuation of efforts undertaken earlier. There is the continued efforts in improving security, however there is a new focus on development. Mentioned later in the report is the announcement of several large scale “signature” projects. Such as the refurbishment of a large dam used for irrigation, a commitment to help open several hundred schools and eradicate polio by the end of 2009. Also the government has clearly concentrated most of Canadian aid with 50% of it now being destined for Kandahar province, where most Canadian soldiers are located (government of Canada 08 pg. 2). The revelation of the mission and the larger concentration on civil development, is in response to decreasing support for the mission. Which has been seen to concentrate to heavily on military aspects, compounded by increasing military casualties support for the mission has fallen steadily and is currently at an all time low (CBC news 08).

It has been said that all politics are local; Canadians typically support peacekeeping, humanitarian aid and international co-operation, while distrusting excessively close cooperation with the United States. Perhaps fatally for public support of the mission ere the statements that Afghanistan is not a peacekeeping mission and its close links to American response to 9/11 despite its international characteristic. These realities have made the government make a real effort to rebred the mission in a light more palatable to Canadians. Simply looking at the cover of the government report, “Canada’s engagement in Afghanistan”, one can get an idea of what the government wishes to display as its policy direction. Pictured from left to right is; Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, sanding in front of a Canadian flag, an ISAF officer shaking hands with afghan recruits, a woman standing in front of a blackboard, a photo of a afghan flag flying over an outpost, a child receiving an injection, a group men consulting on a afghan rug while drinking tea, bellow is a large photo of smiling afghan children, topping of the collection is a maple leaf ( Canadian Government 08). The various photos emphasize different things which Canadians would support. Karzai and the Canadian flag are to remind Canadians of the nascent afghan democracy, as well as Canada’s role in ensuring its continued development. The woman in front of the blackboard is pointed, considering Taliban practice of aggressively attacking female education; this photo serves a double purpose highlighting Taliban savagery and Canadian support of human rights. The afghan outpost is important in promoting the image of independent Afghanistan capable of defending itself; this is to better support government plans to cease military activity in 2011. The child receiving the injection is an appeal to strong Canadian support for international aid, while also being reminiscent of health care. The men consulting on the rug with tea pushes the idea of reconciliation, and grass roots participation. The children are the embodiment of Afghanistan’s hope for a bright future. The maple leaf toping the ensemble is another reminder these are the things Canada is doing and supports. These photos are of course representations of Canada’s six key objectives in Afghanistan (Canadian Government 08 pg.7). Canada’s objectives were reworked with public opinion in mind, as evident when throughout the article there is no reference to the United States. In addition any mention of the Canadian forces is mentioned in conjunction with a pledge to help build the afghan security forces.

Mentioned are Canada’s objectives in Afghanistan, and criticisms of some of Canada’s efforts, however these are observations of specific issues within the mission. There have been many critics of the mission based on the very reason we are there, there has also been question raised over the true desires of Afghans. The Government has commissioned a committee looking at how Canada is doing in Afghanistan; this committed dedicated a section to discussing the differing opinions on the matter, the committee was made up of MP’s from various political parties. One of the objections examined by the committee is that “some Canadians” feel Canadian forces are in Afghanistan only to appease the Americans for not participating in Iraq (Collins et all 08 pg.1). The official government line is that Canada is in Afghanistan as a result of its commitment to NATO and not some kowtowing to US interests. The divisiveness of the issue is highlighted when the committee mentions its own internal divisions on the matter. The view of Afghanistan as an American effort, with begrudging support from NATO is consistently supported by NATO’s varying levels of commitment to the mission. The majority of the forces in Afghanistan are American, what NATO forces are there, are in handfuls and often operate under restrictive caveats. A striking example of begrudging NATO support was the difficulty Canada had in finding a mere thousand soldiers to support our efforts in Khandahar province, despite the extra troops, troop levels in Khandahar are still low (Collins et all 08 pg2). The Committee acknowledges the issue is highly debatable, but points out we cant know what the reasons for going truly were until recordings of the cabinet meetings are released decades in the future. The commitee goes on to say the reasons we went to Afghanistan are irrelevant, what is relevant is that the afghan people are extremely disadvantaged and that Canada is in a position to help ( Collins et al 08 pg 4). Such a message is similar to the one which has been used by the various Canadian governments from the beginning of the afghan mission, if more honest then politicians usually are. This is a message that has resonated with Canadian values; it is reminiscent of the welfare state which Canadians generally support. Despite the supportable language of the mission mounting death tolls have consistently worn down Canadian public support.

Afghan reaction to NATO force’s presence is thought to be generally positive. A parliamentary committee Afghanistan who personally visited and spoke to the locals without the presence of officials wee met with a generally positive response. Their opinion was that the locals had been general hones with them, they did acknowledge that opposition to the mission certainly exists ( Kenny et all 08 pg.5). However there exist real reasons for Afghan opposition to the mission. Some of the reasons are out of frightened self interests, others due to the damage NATO forces cause fighting the Taliban and finally there are genuine Taliban supporters in Afghanistan. Afghans who work for the government or in construction efforts or even simply take advantage of aid are regularly threatened by the Taliban with death threats. Some afghans due to fear of reprisal should the Taliban eventually win may be publicly opposing the government. Collateral damage caused by military actions do occur and have led to condemnations from various areas, from the afghan president to western peace activists. It is rather obvious that such occurrences do nothing to increase afghan support.

Another area worth observation is the cost of the mission. Much debate has gone into the mission, the government as been very open with announcements of foreign aid pledges. However they have been fairly tight lipped about what has actually been delivered. The first information released on the total costs of the mission in Afghanistan, was a report released just recently in October 2008. The report took a variety of factors into consideration including possible deployment sizes, operational tempo and aid investments. The report were based on estimates due to no official results being released, however they estimated the total cost of the afghan war to be between 13.9 to 18.1 billion (Mathilakah et al. 08 pg. 8). The report raised several issues around the war primarily the secrecy around the military budget in Afghanistan. They also pointed out that the indirect means in which the afghan mission is funded makes it difficult to estimate the costs. It wasn’t only the military who surrounded its budget with secrecy but also CIDA, who does not provide project by project budgets. The long time costs of providing care for veterans could also vary widely; however current loses are proving costly (Mathilakah et al. 08 pg. 8). The reports concerns about the opaqueness of the war funding are justified. The Canadian public whose support for the mission is wavering should know the costs of the mission.

The afghan mission is one that has been deeply divisive among Canadians among all political stripes. It has also brought out long running themes within Canadian policy, and has been exemplary of how the Canadian government wishes to be seen in the world. Among the long running themes among Canadian policy is the practice of emphasizing multilateral efforts and playing down involvement with the Americans. Official government reports will go out of their way to emphasize that the mission is a NATO led one, and will noticeably fail to mention American involvement. This is a policy aimed creating a image of an independent Canada pursuing an independent role with nations across the world. Also prominent are the promotion Canadian values, which have been practiced widely in the application of Canadian aid. Canada’s high respect for social welfare sees it, however successfully or unsuccessfully, attempting to build schools, improve medical access and gender equality. Long standing Canadian values have also been challenged by Afghanistan. Principal among them peace keeping for the first time since Korea Canadian troops have been engaged in combat. Contrary to many Canadians belief during the beginning of the mission that Canadians were engaged in peacekeeping. The afghan mission is a microcosm of Canadian foreign policy, and the Canadian debate on the mission has made clear the divisions among Canadians on the role Canadians should be taking.

Casson R, Bachand C, Cannis J, Black D, Blaney S, Bouchard R, Coderre D, Gallant C, Hawn L, Hiebert R, Martin K, Mcguire J (2007) “Canadian Forces in Afghanistan ” Standing Committee on National Deffence. 39th parliament 1st session.

Cox, J. (2007) “ Afghanistan : the Canadian military mission” InfoSeries; Library of Parliament. PRB 07-19E.
Holden M. (2007) “ Afghanistan : Economic Activity and Policy Changes ” InfoSeries; Library of Parliament. PRB 07-29E.
Yung, J. (2007) “ Afghanistan : the Taliban” InfoSeries; Library of Parliament. PRB 07-27E.

CBC News (2008)http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/poll-afghan.html

Balaika bear will you be my valentine?

Sun, 15 Feb 2009 03:54:16 GMT

A link to where I found this http://englishrussia.com/?p=2291#more-2291

More books off the list

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:17:10 GMT

Fathers and Sons, by Ivan turgenev; This book while i liked it was prety slow. Basicly your just following the life of two guys in 19th century russia. Their interactions with their parents, love intrests ect, you read the book for the charecters not the plot wich is strange.

The scourge of god by S.M Stirling; THis is the 4th or 5th book of a series called "the change", ill give you the basic premis of the series, some weird shit hapens in nantucket and then all the technology in the world stops working. like evrything, gasoline doesent combust gunpowerd ceases to blow up, maybe technology is wrong more acurately the laws of physics get changed and as a result almost all technology reverts to medeival level. The first book is prety intense as ou have all these huge cities where all our technology just goese away. The book i just read was OK but i think the series is getting a little stale and he ended it with an obvious cliff hanger ending to make me buy the next book... wich i will.

The white tiger by aravind adiga; this book was simply put awesomely good. Its about a guy from a little vilage in india who becomes a wealthy entrepreneure. You might think "hmm some sappy feel good story", it is definetly not, this guy doese some prety bad stuff to get there. The whole story is told as the main charecter dictates a letter to the premier of china and is a kind of critic of india from an indians perspective. I highly recomend it.

Child 44 by Tom Smith
Empire to Umpire by Norman Hillmer
The war of the world by Nial ferguson
Who killed the canadian military? by J.l.Granatstein
The Krimean war by Alexis Troubetzkoy
The inquisition by Micheal baigen and Richard leigh
1421:the year china discoverd the world by gavin menzies
1424:the year a magnificent chinese fleet sailed to italy and set of the rainaissance by gavin menzies
what stalin knew: the enigma of barbarosa by david Murphy
Hitler and churchill by Andrew Roberts
The death of yugoslavia by laura sibler and allan little
The last kingdom, by Bernard Cornwell
1917 russia's year pf revolution by roy bainton
The Balkans:Nationalism,war, and the great powers, 1804-1999 by misha glenny
I AM AMERICA (and so can you) by Stephen Colbert
Brisinger by christopher paolini

The greatest battle by andrew nagorski
Lennin: a biography, by Robert Service.
The russian revolution: a very short introduction(they arent kiding under 200 pages!) by S.A.Smith
A storm of swords by R. Marten

and the books I've read since the new year
Fighting in spain by George Orwell (completed)
God is not great, by christopher hitchens (completed)
Dracula(graphic novel) (completed)
The prince by niccolo machieveli (completed)
The white tiger by aravind adiga (completed)
The scourge of god by S.M Stirling (completed)
Fathers and Sons, by Ivan turgenev (completed)

Some stuff from canada US relations

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:04:14 GMT

A breife sumay of ww2 acording to me

Hitlah! germs take Austria, Sudetenland, Oh noes! takes other bit of checkoland double Oh noes!,. West is all like WTf?! Brits needs manspower so they start conscription, tell hitlah don’t be touchin Poland! Soyuz and germs say we got no beef. Om nom nom germs take Poland. UK not kool guyz! declares war, wit all their peeps. Everyone chills for a bit…. Oh Noes! Germs is all like “all ur base are belong to us! Lulz” and take west Europe. Winston is like chamberlain you n00b gtfo, Uk keeps fighting. Hitlah invades soyuz, japs bomb pearl harbour, hitlah declares war on USA. Allies invade italy, omgz hax cries hitlah D-Day, hitlah is pwn shortly later, japs are all like wateva you guyz aint so tough, USa enacts god mode nuke japs. ZE end!

something a little more serious
3. scope of canadian war effort , 250 thousand people in air force then (4 times current canadian forces) 1.1 million in army in total (1 In ten Canadians were serving) trained 131 thousand pilots and aircrews. Massive amount of food and industrial product, creats full employment. Public service goese from 46 thousand to 116 thousand, GDP doubles, Income tax goese from 112 millon to 589 million, unions double in membership. Canada grows incredibly.

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:14:34 GMT

So I've finished a couple more books, "The Prince" and George Orwells "fighting in spain".

I quite liked both of them. The prince was was very intresting, Machiaveli seemingly had a very good understanding of how people react to those in power. Obviously this is why he is so famous.

"Fighting in spain" was a fun book surprisingly light and quite amusing to read, this was writen right after he had gotten back to england and he through the book you see him strugling with his worldview as a result of his time in spain. You can also see how much his experience in spain influenced his later books, especialy animal farm and to a lesser extent 1984.
Heres whats left to go.

Child 44 by Tom Smith
Empire to Umpire by Norman Hillmer
The war of the world by Nial ferguson
Who killed the canadian military? by J.l.Granatstein
The Krimean war by Alexis Troubetzkoy
The inquisition by Micheal baigen and Richard leigh
1421:the year china discoverd the world by gavin menzies
1424:the year a magnificent chinese fleet sailed to italy and set of the rainaissance by gavin menzies
what stalin knew: the enigma of barbarosa by david Murphy
Hitler and churchill by Andrew Roberts
The death of yugoslavia by laura sibler and allan little
The last kingdom, by Bernard Cornwell
Fathers and Sons, by Ivan turgenev
1917 russia's year pf revolution by roy bainton
The Balkans:Nationalism,war, and the great powers, 1804-1999 by misha glenny
The scourge of god by S.M Stirling
I AM AMERICA (and so can you) by Stephen Colbert
Brisinger by christopher paolini
The white tiger by aravind adiga
The greatest battle by andrew nagorski
Lennin: a biography, by Robert Service.
The russian revolution: a very short introduction(they arent kiding under 200 pages!) by S.A.Smith
A storm of swords by R. Marten

and the books I've read since the new year
Fighting in spain by George Orwell (completed)
God is not great, by christopher hitchens (completed)
Dracula(graphic novel) (completed)
The prince by niccolo machieveli (completed)

Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:48:25 GMT

So I've already broken my new years resolution and bought a book, George orwell's "fighting in spain" I discovered it in the travel literature section. I will add it to the list of books to read, speaking of which i finished my dracula graphic novel i quite liked it. Kinda spooky in an old fashioned way. I'm also almost done the prince by machiaveli, wich is quite an intresting little book, full of great advice like "a prince must be a lion to scare of the wolves and a fox to outsmart the traps.".I'm thinking ofr my next book I'l read something to do with Russia I'm leaning towards "what stalin knew".

So enough of book crap. I've felt rather disatisfied with my situation lately, and feel I should change something. However I'm at a loss as whatever i think of changing I create a great reason not to change it. Maybe i should just say fuck it and recklessly alter my life. probly a first step would be figure out what iwant to change the most.

beacause i'm a sheep

Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:14:04 GMT

1. What did you do in 2008 that you'd never done before?
bought more books then i could read

2. Did you keep your new years' resolutions, and will you make more for next year?
It was probly along the lines of like cure cancer so no. yes new new years resolution read all my books and dont buy more before i finish them.
3. Did anyone close to you give birth?
not unless you count the birth of fiery bromance.
4. Did anyone close to you die?
yes, ill miss you james

5. What countries did you visit?
british columbia

6. What would you like to have in 2009 that you lacked in 2008?
more friends in ottawa

7. What date from 2008 will remain etched upon your memory, and why?
none come to mind

8. What was your biggest achievement of the year?
asked a girl out and wasnt overly concerned about being turned down. ( i was turned down)

9. What was your biggest failure?
didint work hard enough in russian

10. Did you suffer illness or injury?
i was shot, twice

11. What was the best thing you bought?
combat boots,russian gogles and an east german cap
12. Whose behavior merited celebration?
im gona say my old manager sweetest lady ever
13. Whose behavior made you appalled and/or depressed?
stephen harper, russian government

14. Where did most of your money go?
books,warhamer, food (i ate out to much)
15. What did you get really, really, really excited about?
the trio's new years party, going to BC

16. What song will always remind you of 2008?
i dont pay alot of attentions to songs, as such i probly wont associate one with 2008

17. Compared to this time last year, are you:

i. happier or sadder?

Happier, somewhat

ii. thinner or fatter?

i think fatter

iii. richer or poorer?

richer

18. What do you wish you'd done more of?

getting more friends, reading, schoolwork

19. What do you wish you'd done less of?

less mooning after dames but not doing anything

20. How will you be spending Christmas?
stayed home for christmas very fun

22. Did you fall in love in 2008?
No. but i had some crushes though

23. How many one-night stands?
maybe

24. What was your favorite TV program?
Arrested Development. the hour, the national, dirty jobs

25. Do you hate anyone now that you didn't hate this time last year?
james he spurned my bromantic advances

26. What was the best book you read?
this is a tough one.... The entire honor harington serries, The change serries was excelent as well

27. What was your greatest musical discovery?
MSTRKFT
28. What did you want and get?
decent grades in uni
29. What did you want and not get?
GF,trip to russia

30. What was your favorite film of this year?
"He's a silent guardian; a watchful protector. The Dark Knight."

31. What did you do on your birthday, and how old were you?
had a party it was prety fun lots of people showed up. i felt loved

32. What one thing would have made your year immeasurably more satisfying?
moving out, not live over an hour from evrywhere i need to go
33. How would you describe your personal fashion concept in 2008?
same as before.

34. What kept you sane?
books

35. Which celebrity/public figure did you fancy the most?
obama was prety cool
36. What political issue stirred you the most?
the whole hubub in parliment pissed me off, obama's win, gerogia russia war
37. Who did you miss?
all my friends in montreal, james,jeff,cindy, graham, simon and all the others

38. Who was the best new person you met?
hmm I met bc friends last year but just barely so I'll say them
39. Tell us a valuable life lesson you learned in 2008?
dont get into a way street relationship

In 2008 did you:
1. Go to a party? Even threw my own!
2. Try something new? went to Vancouver
3. Have someone change your life? not realy
4. Kiss someone? Couple people.
5. Tell your family and friends you love them? sure
6. Buy something extravagant? combat boots
7. Done something nice for someone? i spit on a hobo doese that count?
8. Do something terribly wrong? i spit on a hobo doese that count?.
9. Move? ugh no
10. Go to a concert? yes... jet planes of abraham
Best of the Year:
1. Party: my birthday party, trio's new years party
2. Show: Venture Bros, arested development
3. CD: shrugs
4. Movie: wall-e, reader was very good to
5. Song: something by MSTRKRFT
6. Experience: drunken make out was fun
7. Concert: jet planes of abraham
8. Book: Dies the burning
9. Month: aughust
10. Day: I dont know!

Worst of the Year:
1. Party: man that new years party was prety weak sauce
2. Show: mythbusters hasnt been as fun
3. CD: songs from work
4. Movie: Mamma Mia,!!!! even hamered it sucked
5. Song: mamma mia crap
6. Experience: mamma mia
7. Concert:mamma mia i know it was movie but it was that bad!
8. Book: havent realy found yet. as a bad book is one i cant stand to finish
9. Month: duno
10. Day: dunno

Hopes for 2009:

1. Predict something that you think will happen in 2009? russia will invade ukrain
2. What do you hope changes about your country? green party gets a majority government
3. What do you hope for yourself? A steady, normal relationship would be appreciated after all this time.
4. What do you hope for your family?that evrything goese super great
5. What do you hope for your best friends? that the bromance never dies
6. What do you hope for the rest of your friends? They realize st.petersburg is not far at all
7. What is your hope for 2009? More st.petersburg and russian goodness

During 2008:
where were you when it began:probly at em's party but im not sure
did you stay up: not sure
what was your new year wish? cant remeber
how many girlfriends/boyrfriends: like a billion
broke up: a billion times : C
have any crushes?: A handful.
care to mention names? NEVER
new friends: a few maybe friends from uni
win anything? many sexual favors from many various ladies
best place you went to: vancouver
worst place you went to: monreal eww gross
happiest moment: leaving montreal, what a releife
how was your birthday: not in montreal and thus awesome

new years resolution

Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:58:36 GMT

I will finish all the books I've acumalated last year, AND not buy any new ones until these are completed.

Here is a tally of what I have to read in no particular order.
God is not great, by christopher hitchens (completed)
Dracula(graphic novel)
Child 44 by Tom Smith
Empire to Umpire by Norman Hillmer
The war of the world by Nial ferguson
Who killed the canadian military? by J.l.Granatstein
The Krimean war by Alexis Troubetzkoy
The inquisition by Micheal baigen and Richard leigh
1421:the year china discoverd the world by gavin menzies
1424:the year a magnificent chinese fleet sailed to italy and set of the rainaissance by gavin menzies
what stalin knew: the enigma of barbarosa by david Murphy
Hitler and churchill by Andrew Roberts
The death of yugoslavia by laura sibler and allan little
The last kingdom, by Bernard Cornwell
Fathers and Sons, by Ivan turgenev
1917 russia's year pf revolution by roy bainton
The Balkans:Nationalism,war, and the great powers, 1804-1999 by misha glenny
The scourge of god by S.M Stirling
I AM AMERICA (and so can you) by Stephen Colbert
Brisinger by christopher paolini
The white tiger by aravind adiga
The greatest battle by andrew nagorski
Lennin: a biography, by Robert Service.
The russian revolution: a very short introduction(they arent kiding under 200 pages!) by S.A.Smith
The prince by niccolo machieveli
A storm of swords by R. Marten
so 26 books in all.

I'll post a short review after each one and wether or not it gets the pat.c seal of approval.

Since I finished it on the bus today here is a breif review of "God is not great" by christopher hitchens

I quite liked it, its a little like The "god delusion" by richard dawkins, except Hitchens comes off as less foaming at the mouth then dawkings and I think his case is stronger for it. Unlike Dawkins, Hitchens attacks religion more then religious beleife. As is probly evident in the titles; Dawkings "you beleive in god, you are deluded", Hitches "you can beleive in god, but religion is a terrible detriment to humanity" to vastly generalise what they are saying. I'm not sure wich is the more offensive statement, but to me hitchens' by being an attack on religions not the religious seems less offensive. So bassicly what hitchens doese is go through history and finds various horrbile events and lays the blame for them at religions feet, base on the argument that the events wouldnt hapen if not for religion. He also makes the case that all religion is man made (concentrating mostly on islam,judaism and chirstianity but other religions get touched on to) and cites how the talmud,bible and quran came to be, how they were altered ect ect and thus even if divinely inspired arent the originals and thus manmade. He furthers the argument by pointing out descrepnacies within the books, various writing styles atributed to the same author and so on. One thing i found intresting he called the Fascist, Nazi and stalinist regimes pseudo religions, due to their cults of personality and supposed infalibility of the leadership caste. Anyways thats my shody wrap up of the book, It definetly gets the Pat.C seal of approval i recomend reading it.

Knights of 40th milenium

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:07:48 GMT

So I've done a bit of work on some of my warhamer stuff. specificly my squad of rough riders, these are guys on horses with explosive lances and laser pistols(so essentialy pure awesome). However the official models for these guys are absolutly hideous, so I figured I'd make some of my own useing a Knight set for warhamer fantasy. Bellow is my work area and under the Lj-cut are the knights.

Group photo!

CUSA cuts support for Cystic fibrosis, beacause it "only [affects] white people, and primarily men."

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:17:18 GMT

http://www.charlatan.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20981&Itemid=152&mosmsg=Thank+you+for+your+e-mail

Aperently it isint ok to help fight diseases that primarily affect white men. CUSA, supporting the deaths of white men because they are white men.

your going down mother fucker

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:25:04 GMT

I'm so sick and tiered of this damn essay, this end tonight!I'm not leaving this school till this essay is done! (not that i could the last bus left 5 minutes ago) this bitch is going down.

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:20:59 GMT

augh just when I hit my essay writing stride its time to go home! I just wrote like a page in ten minutes, mother F I hate travel time.

Old russian joke

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:03:08 GMT

This is a joke I found in my russian language textbook.

In england what is allowed is allowed, and what is not allowed is not allowed
In germany evrything is allowed except for what is not allowed
In the United states evrything is allowed, and nothing is not allowed
In france evrything is allowed and what is not allowed is also allowed
In the soviet union nothing is allowed, and what is allowed is not allowed.

another soviet joke

Don't say chees or there will be a line up.
(in the soviet union cheese was very rare so any mention of it would cause intrest)

Essay time! tune in on the 24th for another one

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:24:05 GMT

*disclaimer* this hasnt been edited yet *disclaimer*

Why the Russians shouldn’t like Putin, and why they do

The west’s view of Putin as an autocratic man who will do his best to ensure he remains in power. They point to his control of the Russian television media, the suspiciously high death rate of journalists, his move to become prime minister after his two terms as president were up and his invasion of Georgia as evidence of his less then democratic credentials. Yet despite these worrisome attributes Putin remains very popular among the Russian people. This cannot be simply ascribed to Putin’s control of the media, though it no doubt helps, as other Russian leaders had similar control and yet were not as seemingly popular. Putin’s popularity comes from his ability to present a strong powerful image and for his role in returning stability to Russia after the Yeltsin years. Putin is in actuality a traditional Russian leader, enjoying both their strengths and their weaknesses.
Putin has received much credit for the success of the Russian economy during his presidency. However the source of this success comes not from Putin but the prior presidency of Boris Yeltsin. (aslund) Putin simply has not reversed Yeltsin’s free market reforms and has allowed the market to continue to develop. What Putin does do is minimize the success the Russian economy would be receiving were it not for corruption within the government. State monopolies have expanded during Putin’s presidency, each having a friend of Putin’s at its head (Inozemtsev). While the Russian economy as a whole progresses and advances itself, the large state companies have not implemented necessary reforms and become increasingly inefficient. The government is indifferent to the inefficiency as it allows officials to line their pockets, with ministers controlling large shares of the industries they oversee . (aslund) In fairness to Putin his macro economic policy is sound, Russia enjoys large budget surpluses and has a large federal reserve. However these could disappear if the inefficient state monopolies continue to expand and corruption remains unchecked.
Despite or perhaps in spite of the west’s misgivings about Putin the Russian people have generally approved of him and rated his performance well. The Russian people rated President Putin’s performance very favorably in opinion polls with only 10.9 percent rating his performance poor, with the rest deeming his performance satisfactory or good. (byzov). Interestingly they have rated the performance of the government much more harshly with as much as 34.2 % giving a poor rating and only 6.3 percent giving it a good rating, 48.7% said it’s performance was satisfactory (byzov). The difference is quite substantial which no accident is. While in office Putin has overseen the state takeover of the major media outlets, he has used them to create the image of the good Tsar, all good that comes from the government is attributed to him, and all bad to ministers and bureaucrats (aslund). Putin accomplishes two things by shifting blame onto the bureaucracy. Most obviously it maintains his popularity, more insidiously it creates justification for increased power to be placed into his hands. As well as giving justification for not developing an independent bureaucracy and giving power to other actors in Russian politics, such as the State Duma who’s performance was rated by 52% of Russians as poor. (byzov)
A large part of the west’s misgivings about Russia stem from the fact that the people holding power in government are from the late Soviet Era, and still retain the old ways of seeing the world(Inozemtsev). Not only do Russian officials keep a Soviet world view, they keep the most paranoid of soviet world views, the one which arises from the old Soviet security establishment, 75- 78 % of Russian government employees come from security backgrounds (Inozemtsev). Soviet security men were trained to view the world through the prism of Marxism, meaning that players on the global stage act in their own interests. Global events tend to be viewed from a basic assumption that they are caused by specific interests groups acting in their own interest (Inozemtsev). During the cold war this would obviously mean the west would be acting to protect its capitalist interests, naturally pitting them against communist east. Russian officials continue to view the world in such a manner, though they now assume the west wishes to halt a new competitor. Evidence of this world view can be seen in recent events in Georgia when Russia cited the United States’ foreign policy of “creating dividing lines. This was, in fact, the revival of a policy popular in the past and known as containment” Pres. Medvedev (CBC) as a cause of the conflict. There have also been calls from within Russia to retake some of the territory it lost due to the breakup of the Soviet Union, particularly in eastern Ukraine and northern Kazakhstan. These calls have not gone without official support either in 2001 the Russian Duma passed a constitutional amendment allowing the admittance of foreign states or parts of foreign states into the Federation (rasizade). As a market economy Russia only hurts itself by taking a suspicious and confrontational world view, if Russia did not act so belligerently it would have a much easier time negotiating and be better off for it.
A western Observer may question how it is possible that Russians would allow Putin to concentrate so much power into his hands, or at least how he could do this without some sort of major protest. The answer is simple; the Russians on a whole are not overly concerned with democracy. Many of them have lived most of their lives without democracy and are happy to simply have personal freedom, if not political freedom. When surveyed on what Russian’s thought of a multi party system; 19 percent saw no use for political parties, 16 percent preferred a single party state and 20 percent did not know how they felt either way. 55 percent of Russians either do not support, or do not know either way how they feel about a multi party system.(kertman) With such statistics it is not surprising that Putin could so heavily concentrate political power. The numbers do however leave a sizeable portion of the population which does support a multi party system, 45 percent, why were these people not more vocal? The apparent answer is that while they wish to have multiple parties they do not want them to argue with each other. When asked if “on the whole, competition and rivalry between political parties benefit the country,”(kertman), only 31 percent said yes, while 47 percent thought it would harmful to the country (kurtman). The 45 percent of Russians supporting multiple parties merely think they should exist, but they don’t necessarily want them to form any kind of opposition.(kurtman) It is quite easy to see then why Russians don’t particularly see anything wrong with Putin’s moves to limit political opposition. Putin would in fact be acting in accordance with public opinion, it does bear remembering that the public’s primary source of information is controlled by Putin and the press rarely puts a positive light on the opposition parties, or mentions them at all (aslund). Presuming for a moment that these results reflect the unmanipulated views of the Russian people, they would still be at a disadvantage. A government must be accountable; to be accountable it needs someone to check on it someone who will catch the government when it is wrong, and press it to right its wrongs. There is no better way to ensure then having a separate group which wishes to form the government. Wanting the governments power they will try to find any flaw which might give it to them, if the government wishes to keep power it would have to ensure they make few mistakes. Without the danger of death the government will become complacent and careless as it wouldn’t mater what it did as no one could replace them.
Russian’s could be forgiven for their lack luster support for the existence opposition parties, as they haven’t had any truly effective ones. The largest opposition party the CPRF(Communist Party of the Russian Federation) under Yletsin couldn’t decide wether to vehemently oppose him, or take part in government, it tried to do both and failed at both(March). The CPRF had no clear political strategy and took various contradictory actions, such as entering into power sharing talks with Yeltsin then suddenly walking out. They also called a vote of non-confidence when the political situation was unfavorable for them, resulting in a humiliating loss(march). The various political parties became entangled in power plays and petty parlementary politics, Russians never established the Duma as an effective body of power.(march) While helped by a controlled media the presidency appeared much more effective, this would pave the way for the transfer of power away from the Duma and into the presidential office.
If Putin maintains his hold on political power through use of the government controlled media and political suppression as this essay suggests, how then did he come to power as he did not have those advantages at the time? The answer lies with popular discontent with Boris Yeltsin, who ironically came to power due to popular discontent with Gorbachev. (mishler&willert) Russians have traditionally preferred strong decisive leaders. At a time when Gorbachev was powerless to hold the Soviet Union together they turned to Yeltsin who promised a strong Russian. When as Yeltsin’s second term to an end Russia was not strong, it was the weakest it had been since the first world war. Yeltsin had apparently failed so Russians so when under the leadership of a strong and decisive interim president Putin, the economy improved and living standards went up he was the logical choice (mishler&willert). Unlike Yeltsin, Putin was either able to keep economic growth throughout his presidency or lucky enough that it continued throughout his presidency. Yeltsin and Putin differed sharply in respects to their attitude towards the internal relation between the federal Russian government and the various state governments. Yeltsin governed the states ad-hoc haggling with them to attain a national direction to varying degrees of success, Yeltsin’s Russia was a decentralized federal state. Putin’s Russia is exactly the opposite during his presidency, federalism in Russia has all but disappeared Russia’s states are now firmly in the center’s control(mitin). Putin’s reassertion of central control over the regions reinforced his credentials as a strong leader, While Yeltsin’s gradual loss of control undermined him.
The regional governments had plagued Yeltsin’s presidency often obstructing national proposals or making their support conditional upon demands. Putin did not view this system as viable, and set out to change it with the ultimate goal of reducing the total amount of regions. In order to drastically reduce the power of the regional governors Putin took several incremental steps. his first move was to influence the selection of candidates. Putin would place pro center candidates on the regional ballets and give them federal support, however this sort of intervention had it’s limits as regional incumbents had powerful political machines which could cause headaches if they were overly alienated (mitin). The next step of Putin’s concentration of power in the hands of the center, was remove the untouchability of governors. Term limits were instituted and the center was given the power to fire governors if they broke the law, however the more powerfully in trenched governors were given exemptions to the term limits to ensure their loyalty (mitin). Putin having weakened the governors instituted a series of rapid changes to the Russian federal structure; he drastically cut the regions control of their own funding, established federal administrators to take care of federal institutions across Russia something previously administered by the regions, removed the regional governors from any say in federal maters where they previously had veto powers, in a very short period of time Putin gutted gubernatorial powers. As compensation a consultative body was created with rotating membership of the governors (Mitin). The last act of central consolidation of power over the regions was realized when several governors motioned for the appointment of regional governors, many governors afraid of losing their power supported the motion. By the end of Putin’s presidency he reduced the number of regions by six, eliminating the weakest of them (mitin). While Putin largely eliminated the power struggles between center and regions, he was able to do so because of his strong leadership, the regions still theoretically retain their power in the constitution and if the center were to weaken Putin’s reforms could be rolled back.
There are those who are resisting Putin’s moves illegitimately, they are mostly concentrated in Russia’s southernmost territories the North Caucasus. These regions were the most troublesome for Yeltsin, and wanted independence. when Yeltsin told them no, Chechnya fought for independence , Yeltsin did not win the war and the conflict ended in a humiliating tie. The second Chechnyan war resulted in a Russian victory, thanks in part to Putin (sagramoso). However the violence has not ended, the chechnyans have turned the conflict into a religious cause and violence has spread to neighboring states. To date the new violence has been minor, yet it shows an extreme dissatisfaction. (sagramoso). Putin’s response has been heavy handed more troops and police have been sent to the region, while little has been done to find permanent solutions to the conflict. The north Caucasus states have widely varying ethnic groups, cultures and histories even during Soviet times these groups were given a large degree of autonomy in domestic matters (sagramoso). The recent changes have drastically reduced the strength of the state governments, frustrated north Caucasus peoples and lend more cause to the rebels. The regions militants risk becoming increasingly radicalized, and the various groups are showing a disturbing trend towards Islamism many of the groups call for the creation of a Sharia state. In order to reconcile the region towards the rest of Russia Putin will have to ensure that the economic stagnation there is reversed and the corrupt political elite removed. (sagramosso). While Putin might address the economic situation, he has shown willingness to promote economic growth, it is extremely unlikely he will touch the corrupt but more importantly loyal local officials.
Throughout it’s history Russia has always had a rigid system of government with authority flowing from the top. For over a thousand years Russian rulers did not even pretend to be accountable to the people, saying their power came from god but they pretended to rule in their interest. After the revolution Russian leaders did pretend to be accountable to the people, though not directly through the communist, which pretended to be made up of the people. Now finally Russia’s leaders pretend to be directly accountable to the people. While Yeltsin allowed a multi party democracy, he was not accountable to it (shvestova). Yeltsin appointed positions to his political cronies and made many unequal behind the scenes deals with state governors. Yeltsin also oversaw the privatization of the state, linning the pockets of his friends in the process (shvestova). An inordinate amount of early entrepreneurs came from the communist party, suggesting the distribution of state assets was not honest (bonnell). It was precisely because of the lack of accountability he was able to do this. There was no oversight or participation of opposition parties who found themselves locked out of the process. Yeltsin also concentrated very large amounts of power into his own hands (shvestova). Putin then has simply picked up where Yeltsin left off, although they differ in style. Putin has concentrated on keeping power by subordinating the states to him, rather then Yeltsin’s method of keeping them loyal through bribery. Putin has also rolled back a good deal of Yeltsin’s market reforms reintroducing state ownership of various parts of the economy.
In his years in power Vladimir Putin has reversed much of the works of Boris Yeltsin, whether this has been to Russia’s benefit or detriment is not clear. Boris Yeltsin created a multi party federal democracy, which by Russian standards was very decentralized. That autonomy has now been largely erased, and control returned to moscow’s hands. Boris Yeltsin was a democrat this did not make him a good president. The Russians have not viewed his presidency fondly, and unfortunately have linked Yeltsin’s bungles to his democratic reforms, the most democratic period in Russian history was one of its most humiliating. Putin came to power with aim to end Russia’s humiliations. To a people with as deep a love of nation as the Russians this was a popular goal. As opposition parties dwindled, as media once again spoke for the sate, as Gronzy burned, as reporters disappeared, Russian’s were pleased with their president. Russia was standing up to the west again! Russia was strong again, what of the centralization of power? That’s the way it’s always been, only when it was questioned has Russia stumbled. The reason Russian’s like Putin, is because he is what they know. He is authoritarian and offers a strong leader figure, much like the Czars of old.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/08/russia-georgia.html

Frustration upon frustration

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:15:13 GMT

It would be so nice to live in the city where most of my life occurs. To live in the city where i go to school, where i work, where most of the peaople i see day to day are . Instead i live in aylmer, hour away from evrything aylmer. This has several implication I can only stay at school till 11:30 otherwise i will be stranded, even when i leave at 11 30 I will only get home for 1 am. It makes it harder to make friends from school, imposible to spotaniously hang out with someone i have to travel an hour and a half to get there, and who will travel an hour and a half to hang out with a casual acquaintance from school. Anyways enough of that I'll rant about something else now.

On the way home on the bus i chose a spot near the back cause the front lights were off. Reading on the bus is probly one of the highlights of my day, despite the rantings above, so i'm siting in the back those of you familiar with sto buss will know there are four 4 seats aranged in a squar so four people can sit facing each other and that behind those four are two seat facing outwards. I am siting on the seats facing outwards, reading all is well, then someone sits behind me and starts talking to their friend.This is fine they have a right to talk on the bus ect. However ocasionaly i cannot help but listen to conversation on ocasion especialy when it ocurs right behind my head. This hapened tonight to my great iritation and i found myself unable to concentrate on my book and had to listen to this idiot's conversation with a girl he was trying to impress. "when i was 16 i would left the house for two fucking weeks to teach my mom not to worry" wow good job tough guy, you were a brat who caused your poor mother greife cause your a rebel and do your own thing. " I fucking hate people who date someone right after breaking up with someone, their fucking whores, thats why i waited 7 months" right you waited, likely you turned evryone of with your stupid story about running off when you were 16. "I just don't like some people, no reason i just dont like some people" OOhh your so cold and aloof, and superior. "I wouldnt fucking take that i;d fucking kill them" ugh... "oh what your calling for a ride what are you a princess what makes you so entitled blah blah", we get it your independent and dont need anyone stfu. later the girl asks where he lives so he can get a ride home, he isint slow to answer. GAH he made me so angry, I just wanted to read but I had to listen to this idiot instead. well thats all i should go to sleep its past one.

Russian LoL-hogs

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:28:48 GMT

aperently russians have lolhogs instead of lolcats.

http://fishki.net/comment.php?id=44127