|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-07 12:56:02
Are you trying to tell me that we should not sell any weapon whatsoever, even for legitimate concerns?? I think selling weapons should be strictly controlled by the government, but i don't think it should become illegal ...
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-07 20:36:56
Countries cannot avoid the issue of maintaining armed forces if they wish to be considered a sovereign nation.
I think "kn_aeshap" would admit that armed forces without arms would be ridiculous. While he and I would likely hope and prefer to live in a world where people can always work out mutually-agreeable solutions to all disputes, our reality unfortunately suggests we still have a very long way to go.
To be completely dependent on other nations to supply our defence needs is a significant defense liability. And should a nation decide to provide some home-grown defence industry capability for itself, the forces of "scales of economy" always suggest that arms exports be explored. Canada's (and other nations') responsibility as an arms exporter then lie in our exports guidelines and how well we implement them.
So IMO, quite often when we only look at numbers there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". Ladies and gentlemen, please take your pick.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-08 13:52:00
"Countries cannot avoid the issue of maintaining armed forces if they wish to be considered a sovereign nation."
That's not true at all, actually. If the entire world gave up their arms, I doubt that the legitimacy of present nation states would immediately dissolve. It might be hard to go without weapons and still stop others from walking in and taking over your country...but nation states are in no way structurally dependent on weapons.
"I think "kn_aeshap" would admit that armed forces without arms would be ridiculous."
No, not ridiculous at all- beautiful, perhaps...but definitely not ridiculous. I think it'd be great if we could have armies of people waiting to engage in dialogue with other nations, as opposed to engaging in physical fights. I don't see that happening in my lifetime, but it'd be nice...
"To be completely dependent on other nations to supply our defence needs is a significant defense liability. And should a nation decide to provide some home-grown defence industry capability for itself, the forces of "scales of economy" always suggest that arms exports be explored. Canada's (and other nations') responsibility as an arms exporter then lie in our exports guidelines and how well we implement them."
Yes...it is a mistake to ultimately place the security of a country in the hands of a neighbouring nation. It is indeed a defense liability. I do not think, however, that the creation of arms has to to lead up to the exporting of arms...especially not under government control.
Perhaps arms could be controlled by an international body, independent of the nation states that it serves...so that weapons are sold, created and tracked under the watchful eye of a body that has no other mission than to make sure proliferation of weapons does not happen unnecessarily. Not a perfect system, obviously, as it would most likely have loops and pressure points (like the UN for example)...it would be a system created by and for humans- on default, it would be flawed.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-09 18:32:20
kn_aeshap seemed to refute my statement that "Countries cannot avoid the issue of maintaining armed forces if they wish to be considered a sovereign nation".
He replied: "That's not true at all, actually. If the entire world gave up their arms, I doubt that the legitimacy of present nation states would immediately dissolve. It might be hard to go without weapons and still stop others from walking in and taking over your country..."
So while he seemed to start by completely disagreeing ("...not true at all...") he ended up agreeing with my statement, that "It might be hard to go without weapons" and that armed forces help countries to protect their sovereignty.
kn_aeshap also seemed to disagree with my statement that "...armed forces without arms would be ridiculous" by saying that "(it is)... not ridiculous at all- beautiful, perhaps...but definitely not ridiculous" and kn_aeshap also added that "...I don't see that happening in my lifetime...".
I should think the term "unarmed armed forces" would effectively be an oxymoron and hence, ridiculous. I'm surprised anyone would seriously disagree. Of course, my statement was made in an earnest deductive manner and not meant to be flippant - "if sovereign states need armed forces then arms are ergo, also needed".
Our statements need to remain earnest or this discussion will degenerate to the detriment of all.
I think what kn_aeshap wanted to say was that it would be nice if countries did not need armed forces but he/she thinks it would not happen in his/her lifetime. I agree on this wholeheartedly but IMO complete global disarmament is just a distant possibility.
Now, I do agree with kn_aeshap that having home-grown arms industry does not necessitate the export of arms. I only said that "... the forces of "scales of economy" always suggest that arms exports be explored". IMO, arms development and procurement are very cost-inefficient even for large countries. It is possible to limit our arms industry to government institutions but that often limits ingenuity and cost-control. Overall, I think it is legitimate to suggest barring private Canadian firms from developing arms but a likely problem would be the flight of those companies and expertise to foreign states. I also agree the whole concept of arms industry is disagreeable.
IMO kn_aeshap's suggestion for a truly effective international body to administer arms trading may be even more problematic than the UN situation we now have. We would require agreement on extremely intrusive monitoring capability at the level of a "Big Brother". If a smaller country like Iraq is already such a drain on the UN one can imagine the amount of discord it might be on a global level. It's not workable and it would be impossible to fund. Who would pay and why would they pay to fund this? Not only would it be flawed but it would likely spawn conflicts of its own making. I think efforts to be make to solve problems at the root level. I believe key root problems are distrust and the penchant of some for cheating.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-09 21:48:10
"So while he seemed to start by completely disagreeing ("...not true at all...") he ended up agreeing with my statement, that "It might be hard to go without weapons" and that armed forces help countries to protect their sovereignty."
Here are my 2 points, just to clarify:
A) It is not necessary to have weapons in order to be considered a nation state. The working construct is not dependent on armed forces.
B) It might be hard to go without weapons and still stop others from walking in and taking over your country.
Even thought the latter is true, the former is a different point altogether.
For the sake of an earnest discussion, could you provide something to back up your opinions or to give example? It's nice that you think that "It is possible to limit our arms industry to government institutions but that often limits ingenuity and cost-control." and that "suggestion for a truly effective international body to administer arms trading may be even more problematic than the UN situation we now have. We would require agreement on extremely intrusive monitoring capability at the level of a "Big Brother"." - but in order to take your opinion seriously, you should really give examples.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-10 12:40:45
kn_aeshap, since you wish to nit-pick over citations for so many things. Perhaps you can also validate some of your own key ideas:
- "It is not necessary to have weapons in order to be considered a nation state. The working construct is not dependent on armed forces." Just what exactly do you mean by these two statements? Can you identify an authoritative source to back them up? Can you offer valid examples with respect to Canada's security needs?
- "Even thought the latter is true, the former is a different point altogether..". This statement is quite open to interpretation. Can you explain further? How is this idea, whatever it is, relevant to practical Canadian security options?
As for your request for citations:
"It is possible to limit our arms industry to government institutions but that often limits ingenuity and cost-control"
This concept is really not uniquely an arms issue but an issue of how competition can often improve one's choices. A good example is Canada's fighter aircraft. IMO, Dieffenbaker essentially ended Canada's indigenous jet fighter development capability. If Canada wanted to meet national and NATO defence commitments and come up with a fighter it could conceivably have tried to cobble something together but it would have to start from "ground zero". Instead it chosed to buy from an outside commercial (non-government) contractor, McDonnell-Douglas. The CF-18 has served us well and has provided Canadian jobs as well.
"... suggestion for a truly effective international body to administer arms trading may be even more problematic than the UN situation we now have. We would require agreement on extremely intrusive monitoring capability at the level of a "Big Brother".
An excellent example is Iraq. Here we have a very clear case of arms embargo and a very hot story not only for the "main players" in the UN, the US plus Iraq but also for the many investigative journalists all over the world. Throughout the processes, the Iraqis have complained about intrusion and various businesses have also been indicted presumably to their chagrin. So now, after 12 years' of expensive and highly acrimonious effort, even with numerous reports, stories and UN resolutions the UN is still not clear on just what the status of Iraq's compliance is and we have a big war looming as a result. Remember the disputes over interviews and U-2 overflights? This is just to show possession of weapons - proving where those weapons and supplies came from would require additional work. Would you care to extrapolate this kind of process to include arms trade for all the other nations? Who would pay for it all? Why would they?
My validations are taken from every day contenporary life. If you care to keep up with current events you can easily figure it out for yourself. Providing a citation is necessary if a concept is vague but also key in a discussion but relatively simple concepts should be common knowledge to anyone who wants to debate more serious issues. If you wish to debate critical issues, you need to first take some responsibility to be aware of current events, to think about them and to do your own research. Don't be too surprised if I or other people just ask you to "look it up for yourself" next time.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-08 05:04:53
"Are you trying to tell me that we should not sell any weapon whatsoever, even for legitimate concerns??"
First off, let us be clear on the point that in no way do "we" sell weapons to other countries. This is done by governments and corporations. In no way have I ever had a direct say in whether or not the government I live under should allow the sales of arms to particular countries...
Define "legitimate concerns" and I'll tell you whether or not I think Canada should be allowing military exports to go to countries under those conditions.
"I think selling weapons should be strictly controlled by the government, but i don't think it should become illegal ..."
Do you mean to say that you think the selling of arms should be controlled by democratically elected governments, or just the governing body in general?
I don't think that nation states should have complete control of military exports and trade- I think that's a horrible idea. Handing that over to the governing body of a country -the ability to explicitly control arms sales- sounds fairly frightening actually.
Allowing for something -like say- control...to be manufactured via the formation of strategic military alliances (between nation states) who can pick and choose the clients they sell to, under the direct influence of their own political and economic agendas...is an awful thing in my mind. And it sounds all too familiar for my liking...
I'm not sure I think that weapons sales should become illegal, at the moment- that's a tricky one. I wish there was no need for weapons what-so-ever...but I believe that when directly attacked, anyone has the right to use equal or appropriate force in self defence.
Humans have put so much energy into creating such amazing and destructive weapons that it seems as if -in quite a few possible situations- one has to "up the ante" in order to defend at all...it's a troubling issue, indeed.
Perhaps more effort should be put into resolving the issues that breed the want for weapons. It might be better to seek dialogue, than to pour time and effort into creating and selling more weapons- better to seek dialogue than to resolve our problems by beating-down our fellow humans with insanely advanced sticks and rocks. Perhaps we need to be much more vigorous in addressing the issues of why it is that nations feel the need to secure themselves with weapons of mass destruction.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-08 11:24:56
The word "we" was perhaps misleading, i meant the canadian companies.
legitimate concerns : Self-defence and "certain" specific offensive actions to protect the greater good of mankind (such as the invasion of Germany to get rid of the Nazi regime - i don't consider invading Germany during WWII an act of self-defence). Don't ask me to define what specific offensive actions should be allowed, as I'm not an international law lawyer... Offensive action is a very touchy issue, and i don't have a real specific answer ... i think it must be analyzed case per case.
"Do you mean to say that you think the selling of arms should be controlled by democratically elected governments, or just the governing body in general?"
Controlled was maybe the wrong to use, i should rather say "oversee" that the weapons are not sold to countries which are not democratic, don't respect international law, and which do not respect human rights... This analysis must also be done on a case per case basis by the government.
"It might be better to seek dialogue, than to pour time and effort into creating and selling more weapons- better to seek dialogue"
I agree with you, dialogue must be the priority, but we also have to be realistic, if dialogue fails, sometimes you have no choice but to resort to force, especially when one of the parties involved in the dialogue is a despot and dictator. Mr. Chamberlain during the 2nd world war did try dialogue for a very long time with Hitler, and it completely failed...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-08 16:26:55
"legitimate concerns : Self-defence and certain specific offensive actions to protect the greater good of mankind "
I knew i read a document on this somewhere, the actual cases where offensive actions can be taken are
discussed by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Canada actively participated in this commission (to avoid the repeat of Rwanda)
For further information,
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/icissresearch/main.htm
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-09 13:52:01
"...sometimes you have no choice but to resort to force..."
I agree, that sometimes you must defend yourself when being attacked and help to defend those who cannot carry out the job by themselves. However, I do not think that this cycle will ever produce any sort of peace among the worlds nations. It will only ever continue as such...
Reply to this message
|
|
