… over the last 50 years, provided by Obama in The Audacity of Hope pp. 279-80:

Indonesia provides a handy record of U.S. foreign policy over the past fifty years.  In a broad outline at least, it’s all there: our role in liberating former colonies and creating international institutions to help manage the post-World War II order; our tendency to view nations and conflicts through the prism of the Cold War; our tireless promotion of American-style capitalism and multinational corporations; the tolerance and occasional encouragement of tyranny, corruption, and environmental degradation when it served our interests; our optimism once the Cold War ended that Big Macs and the Internet would lead to the end of historical conflicts; the growing economic power of Asia and the growing resentment of the United States as the world’s sole superpower; the realization that in the short term, at least, democratization might lay bare, rather than alleviate, ethnic hatreds and religious divisions – and that the wonders of globalization might also facilitate economic volatility, the spread of pandemics, and terrorism. In other words, our record is mixed – not just in Indonesia, but across the globe.

The Economist nails it on the head this week in a big way about the effect of the Olympics on China.  The Olympics have forced the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) to “reassert an authoritarian grip over Beijing” in a way that has not been seen in some time.  Yes, the Chinese are guilty of human rights abuses by the West’s definition of that term (although much of their actions are far less worse than those of Canada, the United States, and a host of G8 nations over the last 100 years), but things were improving before the spotlight hit China and every “activist” with sympathetic aims and virtually no knowledge of China and its history other than what they saw for 30 seconds on CNN got all up in arms about the Olympic games.  These uninformed “activists” are alone responsible for the push-back they are seeing from the CCP and should not be the least bit surprised.

It is unfortunate that the real lack of substance to the criticisms of a number of detractors of the games which consistently play over the airwaves cannot be detected by the average citizen who finds it easy to jump on the anti-China bandwagon.  The masses reaction to media criticism of China has re-asserted the power of the thirty-second sound bite and shown that most people lack a true understanding of China, its history, and its suffering at the hands of Western powers.

The bottom line is that everyone should read the article written by The Economist and take a healthy read through a couple of history textbooks on China before they are ready to criticize its human rights abuses and culture while calling for a boycott of the games.  I’m not saying that China is not guilty of what they are accused of, but am saying that before we make condescending statements and assume a moral high ground we should take a long look in the mirror and remember the ethic of reciprocity that our parents bestowed upon us – “treat others as you would like to be treated”.

A great article in the Globe & Mail yesterday discussed the involvement of Pakistan in the current conflict in Afghanistan.  To date, this issue has been largely overlooked, but as James Sanders, a great friend of mine, said, this issue must be addressed immediately by Canada and NATO forces.  Canada and NATO cannot stand by idly as the Pakistani government meddles in the affairs a nation we are trying to bring peace and stability to.  The Taliban have proven to be enough of a problem on their own, but if Pakistan continues to interfere, success in Afghanistan will be even more difficult to come by.  

It is written in the article that “Western diplomats have previously said they tread carefully with Pakistan in part because of the country’s fragile politics, its mistrust of foreign pressure and its nuclear arsenal”, but I find these reasons for inaction to be inexcusable.  When has Canada, a defender of democracy and proponent of peace, stability, and international human rights, been afraid to stand up to aggressors? I know one thing – as of late we have not done anything of real significance internationally unless another country has made the statement first.  It is time for Canada to stop following on its foreign policy and to start leading the pack.

 There was a time, under Lester B. Pearson, where Canada was able to utilize its “soft power” and international respect to intervene in and solve conflicts, but that time has clearly passed.  The administrations of Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien are largely responsible for this current problem as they allowed our foreign presence (please, hold the arguments about Trudeau and his international reputation and go read “While Canada Slept” by Andrew Cohen) to diminish.  

If there is someone who can right this wrong, it is Stephen Harper.  Could you really see Stephane Dion or Jack Layton leading Canada back to international respectability? Maybe you could, but I definitely could not.  I hope the Harper government will continue to advance its foreign policy agenda, which has proven to be one of its strengths thus far (with the exception of its relationship with China), to include standing up to international aggressors such as Pakistan. They have made great strides on extending the mission in Afghanistan and bolstering support for our troops there, but we need to become more of a vocal critic of those standing in our way, such as Pakistan, if real stability is ever going to be achieved in Afghanistan.

We didn’t need nuclear weapons to end the Suez Crisis or help re-claim France in WWII – we had our conscience and our will to win.  Does it matter if Pakistan has nuclear weapons? An unstable political situation? A deep mistrust of foreign pressure?  It is time we revert to what helped us achieve some of our greatest international success and start to put pressure on those countries who stand against the peace, order, and good government that we have and are trying so hard to bring to Afghanistan.  If we fail to do this, the efforts of our troops on the ground may all be for naught.

Courtesy of Pat Duncan… a great movie trailer for a movie I’ve been hearing a lot about – “W.”  Can’t wait for this to come out although I am sure some members of the current administration in the U.S. are a little bit less excited.

Speaking to 200,000 in Berlin, Obama delivered an unbelievable address to an enthusiastic crowd.  A must see:

… as is suggested by Barack Obama in this article… and it is also an absolutely wonderful place.  It is a state in the Middle East which represents the values which we care so deeply about and value so highly in Canada – freedom, justice, and democracy.  

It is great that Obama paid a visit to Yad Vashem (the main holocaust memorial in Israel) while he was in Jerusalem and laid a wreath there.  All too often people forget about the impetus for the creation of the state of Israel and the hardships and attacks its people have had to endure since its creation (and also before its creation) while they recklessly criticize its defense and foreign policy.

Obama is truly proving to everyone right now that he understands one of the most difficult foreign policy challenges facing leaders today – how to handle the growing instability in the Middle East.  Support for Israel is one very, very important part of ensuring that the region is stable and prosperous.

Great article from the NY Times.

Hilarious artwork courtesy of www.warrenkinsella.com

One of my good friends wrote this to me the other day… she will remain nameless right now because she doesn’t know I’m posting this, but everyone should have the chance to read this:

Optimism and idealism are too often cast aside as roses and rainbows with no fists to defend themselves in realist politics. But, as I think you know, progressive politicians and objective citizens never come to the ring ill prepared. We know the game and how it is played and therefore are the only ones to know how to bring the idealist vision through the back alleys and suddenly to the forefront of possibility. It is the second set of fists behind our backs. One allows us to visualize a better society, however challenging the realization may be; and the second allows us to stride towards the imaginable vision from within the framework of the traditional political game. Slowly, perhaps more people will embrace the real weapon in politics today- a daring will and vision to give people what they deserve but what has been believed for too long that it is impossible.

As I’m sure you’ve read, there is a lot of speculation right now as to what will come of Obama’s trip to Europe and the Middle East that he is on right now.  

He’s got a jam packed schedule which includes a number of meetings and speeches which will be widely covered (including a number of meetings with Israel, Palestine, Jordan, etc…), but I am most looking forward to the speech he is going to be giving in Germany.  The location of that speech has been debated as the German government did not want Obama to give his speech at the same location where Reagan famously said “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”.  

Since the reservations were voiced, the location has been under wraps and has not yet been announced (a possible alternative mentioned was the location of JFK’s famous speech where he uttered another famous catch phrase “Ich bin ein Berliner.”).  Anyways, regardless of where it happens, I expect this speech to be a great clincher to the trip and will be eagerly awaiting it.  I will post it here if I can find it linked to YouTube by Obama’s people (they are great at keeping their YouTube account active, so I would say this is likely).

Here are a couple of articles if you aren’t familiar with the stir that this overseas trip is creating.  Here are the basic thoughts floating out there on Obama’s trip:

McCain Campaign: Using this trip to remind Americans Obama is not experienced in foreign policy, using domestic advertising to harm his credibility while he is away

Obama Campaign: Will use media opportunities to refute the claim of the McCain camp and draw a strong divide between the two sets of foreign policies

Media Questions:

- Will Obama make any major mistakes while overseas? Will he show up looking inexperienced? How will McCain’s advertising about Obama’s lack of foreign policy credentials play domestically? Will this be the tipping point where Obama shows he is a well-rounded candidate and finally shrugs the inexperienced label on foreign policy? What will polling of the electorate reveal about their view on Obama’s foreign policy credentials after the trip?

Bottom line, you can expect a ton of coverage.  Here are some links to get you started:

Obama in Afghanistan (CNN)

Obama Campaign Memo on Foreign Policy (TIME)

Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign Policy (NYTimes)

Obama’s Middle East Itinerary (NYTimes)

Welcome, Mr. Would-be President (The Economist)

McCain Camp Mixed Take on Obama’s Trip (NYTimes)

Obama’s Aides Furious at McCain Location Leak (NYDailyNews)

Obama’s War Zone Guides (Time)

Iraqi PM Supports Obama’s 16-Month Plan (Time)

If any of you have any other articles which are interesting… please e-mail them to me!