DFAIT logo partnership The logo for the by design elab, an independent research development and production think tank specializing in online forums for policy development, incubated in 1997 at the McLuhan Program at the University of Toronto
DFAIT Home Site Map Help Policies Partners Feedback Netcast Français
 
Welcome
Message from the Minister
Dialogue Paper
Answer Questions
View Answers
Discussion Forum
 

Conclusion: The World We Want

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.

Perhaps the World we don't want

Contributor: Deidden

Date: 2003-03-29 21:44:41


Personally, I'm not surprised at all. I foresaw war as soon as Bush stepped up to the presidential podium. I have my suspicions that Bush allowed pre 9/11 warnings to be unnoticed in order to consolidate the nation into war. War and hatred, as we’ve seen in the past, is an incredible irrational political vice, with incredible psychological provocations.

While I am not saddened at the thought of having Saddam off the political landscape, I believe fundamental questions must be asked by the public at large. Why Iraq and not other countries who have perennially violated human rights in a much more severe way than Saddam’s regime? Why attack a country with dubious WMDs and ignore countries that have both admitted possessing WMDs and expressed contempt for the U.S.? Can we permit the U.S. to make such blatant aggressions against sovereign states without provocation, something the U.N. has sought to prevent since WWII?

In other words, I’d like to have the public properly informed of such issues. It should be mandatory in high schools to educate students over American Foreign Policy, especially in the Middle East. If people are going to protest either in favour for war, or against it, they should at the very least be informed. There is nothing worse than having a great number of people gregariously huddled together and acting out of sequacity.

Anyways, I’ve read somewhere that the war on Iraq was contemplated sometime in 1997, prior to the expulsion of inspectors in 1997 and 1998, as Iraqi officials claimed that some of the inspectors were “American spies”. Makes you wonder.

I do not doubt that many at the White House aspire to a certain ideology of dominating the Middle East. If it were to be ‘secured’ it would enable the country to profit for years, maintaining its supremacy over the rest of the world. That is no doubt the main reason why they did not ratify the Kyoto Accord and endorce the International Criminal Court.

Regardless, the events are in motion. As you’ve said, the pin is pulled and the grenade has been tossed into an ammunitions building.

Out of principle, in regards to the U.N., we should not participate whatsoever with the coalition forces. It is clearly an illegal operation. While I do not hold any particular affinity with Saddam Hussein, I feel that, like any other ‘survivor’, he will do ‘whatever it takes’ in order to preserve himself. In other words, he’ll cause as much damage to his country to win a political war. Aside principles, the cost of the war is too much in order to facilitate a ‘regime change’. Not only will immediate casualties be terribly enormous, but also the region will be destabilized. This is where I differ in opinion. I do not believe that Rumsfeld et al. can foresee the future. I do not believe that they’ve anticipated certain factors in the war (otherwise, they wouldn’t have altered/stalled their war plan as we have seen).

While they can delude themselves into thinking that the Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq view the U.S. as liberators, they will find the country fragmented into bitter, quarreling factions, bent for supremacy of the country. Iraq will be pulled into a regional war that may last decades, leaving the coalition forces in the middle. Sound familiar? I hope so.

This was a tremendous gamble made by the U.S. senior administration. However, they have failed. They have failed because they underestimated their opponents, and relied on a best scenario as being an inevitable outcome.

On a different matter, our lack of military support does not mean that we should ignore foreign matters entirely. I believe we should be generous with foreign aid. However, that does not mean that we should be blind and frivolous with such programs. I believe that we must research where our aid would be of the most benefit. We should also send in specialists to monitor how effective the funding is (i.e. doctors, engineers, anthropologists, etc.). Lastly, we should also incorporate 'follow-up' programs months and years down the road to be able to detect the differences the aid has made. That way, we can determine what works and what doesn't, and develop better strategies in the future.

Reply to this message

Show in topic