Snafu Main

The crisis in Iraq is proving to be a great turning point in the political spectrum. America is proving its willingness to operate with or without the approval of others, possibly effectively proving the United Nations to be powerless. Britain is being forced to decide where her loyalties lie, be it with the floundering European Union or the resolute United States. Canada is also under great pressure, whether to bow and admit to being an American running dog, or to make a stand and force more independence from the United States. The cradle of civilization is proving to be the main stage for an international play that is being acted out in every possible theatre.

America, throughout the second half of the 20th century, has acted in the best interest of her allies. During the cold war, America acted in cohesion with the rest of the NATO powers, and until the nineties, also followed the will of the United Nations. The nineties saw the start of the swing towards independent action, where America, in several instances bypassed the United Nations and simply acted through NATO. Kosovo was a prime example, the United Nations refused to act so America alongside her NATO allies went in. Now, the one organisation that America has never acted without whose consent is divided on an issue. Should the majority of NATO powers not join America in an invasion of Iraq, and should America still act alone, it will prove that no group can oppose the United States. In fact, it will not only further prove the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, but also the integrity and honour that the United States places on it’s treaties to even staunch allies. America is testing its might, and if it acts in an invasion of Iraq without support, America will prove to the world that it operates at the will of no one, and under the authority of no one. Effectively, America will prove that it cannot be trusted to uphold past agreements, nor will any nation be able to believe it is immune to American action. This could set in motion a slipper slope, wherein America moves from Iraq to North Korea, as they have already stated they should, and likely will. After North Korea would come the third member of the ‘Axis of Evil’, Iran. Once this axis is defeated, what is to stop America from believing that any nation whose political views don’t align with the United States pose a threat and deal with them accordingly? America will lose many friends should it go through with the invasion of Iraq that has been decided upon. The true question is will America care? Or will America simply internalize and ignore the wishes of its neighbours.

The issue facing Canada is a much direr and more pressing one. Rather than a gradual turn towards a new outlook as the United States appears to be following, Canada has a major decision to be made right her and now. In its basest form, Canada’s problem lies at the doorstep to America. Canada has a long history of being a vassal to another power, in fact, Canada has always, in all of its history been a vassal to a foreign nation. The transition of ownership from Britain to America went smoothly and without incident during the Second World War, and has continued that way ever since. Canada continues to sign treaties with America that are to the detriment of Canada, such as NAFTA, simply because the United States tells Canada to. Right now, Canada is trapped, forced to make a decision. When America invades Iraq, Canada will either join or not join, that question is much more significant than it seems at face value.

The Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, is guaranteed power until 2005, when the next federal election occurs. Provided no enormously heinous scandal befalls the Liberal party, Chrétien is guaranteed to be re-elected. Due to the polarization of Canadian politics, the Liberal party effectively cannot be removed from power. This fact has not been lost on Chrétien, who realizes that ‘rocking the boat’ would be a very unnecessary risk. To this end, Chrétien has to realize that Iraq is an unnecessary risk when looking at the politics of Canada, but when viewing it from an international perspective, not aiding America in an invasion of Iraq would be a dangerous risk.

Now, should Canada not join America in an invasion of Iraq, Canada will find her southern neighbour somewhat colder. Canada would be forced to turn elsewhere for trading partners; Europe may be a closed door to anything North American as a result of an invasion of Iraq, so Canada will have scant places to turn other than Asia. This may force Canada to internalize, effectively to begin trading East to West rather than North to South as has been the case for the past century or so. In a long term point of view, we would have effectively burned our bridges behind us, and instead of asking politely with the shotgun holstered, when America comes demanding our fresh water and natural gas reserves, they will come with the shotgun drawn and cocked. Though that could just be the author’s rambling paranoia at work, no one can really be sure.

What should happen to Canada should we invade Iraq? If the cakewalk theory holds, then Chrétien will have managed to keep both the home front and the American’s happy. Should the war be drawn out, or end with large numbers of casualties, then Chrétien is in dire straights. The possibility exists that Chrétien could be ousted from his seat as the head of the Liberal party; much of the party already dislikes him. If he goes to the poles known as the man that sent Canada into an Iraqi meat grinder, there is an outside chance that the Liberal party could lose the election. The chance of that is entirely outside, and dependant upon several extreme and public mistakes by the Liberal party.

Simply put, Canada has to make a choice as to where its priorities lie, America, Europe or Asia. America is closer, we have more ties to America, but America is also somewhat more unstable and much more unfair with their business practices than they other two choices. Europe would be the optimal choice, but with the burgeoning European Union, they will be wanting to trade amongst themselves rather than across the pond. This leaves Asia as the remaining choice for major trading partners, Canada already has a large amount of trade with Asia, expanding it would be relatively easy. The problem with Asia lies in a cultural difference. Asian nations commonly employ child labour and sweat shops, if Canada is willing to swallow our collective morals, then Canada can fully throw herself into the arms of Asia. Otherwise, Canada will be stuck in the middle, not one any one side or another. That position does have it’s advantages though.

The third nation to face a major change this year is of course Great Britain. The nation that is currently headed by Prime Minister Tony Blair is trapped between the old world and the new. The tug of the old world is once again tugging at Britain, now an alternative to following America blindly exists. For the past half century, Britain has been forced to take a backseat to the power of America, going along with America’s decisions based out of need. With the advent of the European Union, Britain now has a partner that is closer, less belligerent and less domineering. To add to that, the EU is both more open to trade, and an easier trading partner, due to it being much closer geographically. The English people don’t appear to want war, add to that the fact that Tony Blair’s own cabinet is divided against him.

Should Britain invade Iraq alongside the United States, and the cakewalk theory holds true, then it is probable that Tony Blair will be removed from power in the 2006 elections. Should the cakewalk theory blow up in their proverbial faces, then England’s allegiance could quite possibly fully sway from America to the European Union, adding a great amount of strength to the EU. An English shift in allegiance could easily balance the EU against America, effectively it could create a second superpower. Such a counterbalance could act to check American aggression and “policing.”

This year marks a time of change. As the world finishes sorting itself out after the end of the Cold War over a decade ago, various powers are attempting to control whatever they possibly can. Other nations are drawing together to attempt to counter the aggression of others, and some are becoming increasingly isolationistic. Whatever the reasons, this year will mark a great change in international politics that will be felt for years to come.


	© All pictures that do not belong to us hereby belong to the people that they belong to. All other pictures are ours.	2003: The Time of Troubles (final draft on February 15, 2003, 2:20:34 AM) The crisis in Iraq is proving to be a great turning point in the political spectrum. America is proving its willingness to operate with or without the approval of others, possibly effectively proving the United Nations to be powerless. Britain is being forced to decide where her loyalties lie, be it with the floundering European Union or the resolute United States. Canada is also under great pressure, whether to bow and admit to being an American running dog, or to make a stand and force more independence from the United States. The cradle of civilization is proving to be the main stage for an international play that is being acted out in every possible theatre. America, throughout the second half of the 20th century, has acted in the best interest of her allies. During the cold war, America acted in cohesion with the rest of the NATO powers, and until the nineties, also followed the will of the United Nations. The nineties saw the start of the swing towards independent action, where America, in several instances bypassed the United Nations and simply acted through NATO. Kosovo was a prime example, the United Nations refused to act so America alongside her NATO allies went in. Now, the one organisation that America has never acted without whose consent is divided on an issue. Should the majority of NATO powers not join America in an invasion of Iraq, and should America still act alone, it will prove that no group can oppose the United States. In fact, it will not only further prove the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, but also the integrity and honour that the United States places on it’s treaties to even staunch allies. America is testing its might, and if it acts in an invasion of Iraq without support, America will prove to the world that it operates at the will of no one, and under the authority of no one. Effectively, America will prove that it cannot be trusted to uphold past agreements, nor will any nation be able to believe it is immune to American action. This could set in motion a slipper slope, wherein America moves from Iraq to North Korea, as they have already stated they should, and likely will. After North Korea would come the third member of the ‘Axis of Evil’, Iran. Once this axis is defeated, what is to stop America from believing that any nation whose political views don’t align with the United States pose a threat and deal with them accordingly? America will lose many friends should it go through with the invasion of Iraq that has been decided upon. The true question is will America care? Or will America simply internalize and ignore the wishes of its neighbours. The issue facing Canada is a much direr and more pressing one. Rather than a gradual turn towards a new outlook as the United States appears to be following, Canada has a major decision to be made right her and now. In its basest form, Canada’s problem lies at the doorstep to America. Canada has a long history of being a vassal to another power, in fact, Canada has always, in all of its history been a vassal to a foreign nation. The transition of ownership from Britain to America went smoothly and without incident during the Second World War, and has continued that way ever since. Canada continues to sign treaties with America that are to the detriment of Canada, such as NAFTA, simply because the United States tells Canada to. Right now, Canada is trapped, forced to make a decision. When America invades Iraq, Canada will either join or not join, that question is much more significant than it seems at face value. The Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, is guaranteed power until 2005, when the next federal election occurs. Provided no enormously heinous scandal befalls the Liberal party, Chrétien is guaranteed to be re-elected. Due to the polarization of Canadian politics, the Liberal party effectively cannot be removed from power. This fact has not been lost on Chrétien, who realizes that ‘rocking the boat’ would be a very unnecessary risk. To this end, Chrétien has to realize that Iraq is an unnecessary risk when looking at the politics of Canada, but when viewing it from an international perspective, not aiding America in an invasion of Iraq would be a dangerous risk. Now, should Canada not join America in an invasion of Iraq, Canada will find her southern neighbour somewhat colder. Canada would be forced to turn elsewhere for trading partners; Europe may be a closed door to anything North American as a result of an invasion of Iraq, so Canada will have scant places to turn other than Asia. This may force Canada to internalize, effectively to begin trading East to West rather than North to South as has been the case for the past century or so. In a long term point of view, we would have effectively burned our bridges behind us, and instead of asking politely with the shotgun holstered, when America comes demanding our fresh water and natural gas reserves, they will come with the shotgun drawn and cocked. Though that could just be the author’s rambling paranoia at work, no one can really be sure. What should happen to Canada should we invade Iraq? If the cakewalk theory holds, then Chrétien will have managed to keep both the home front and the American’s happy. Should the war be drawn out, or end with large numbers of casualties, then Chrétien is in dire straights. The possibility exists that Chrétien could be ousted from his seat as the head of the Liberal party; much of the party already dislikes him. If he goes to the poles known as the man that sent Canada into an Iraqi meat grinder, there is an outside chance that the Liberal party could lose the election. The chance of that is entirely outside, and dependant upon several extreme and public mistakes by the Liberal party. Simply put, Canada has to make a choice as to where its priorities lie, America, Europe or Asia. America is closer, we have more ties to America, but America is also somewhat more unstable and much more unfair with their business practices than they other two choices. Europe would be the optimal choice, but with the burgeoning European Union, they will be wanting to trade amongst themselves rather than across the pond. This leaves Asia as the remaining choice for major trading partners, Canada already has a large amount of trade with Asia, expanding it would be relatively easy. The problem with Asia lies in a cultural difference. Asian nations commonly employ child labour and sweat shops, if Canada is willing to swallow our collective morals, then Canada can fully throw herself into the arms of Asia. Otherwise, Canada will be stuck in the middle, not one any one side or another. That position does have it’s advantages though. The third nation to face a major change this year is of course Great Britain. The nation that is currently headed by Prime Minister Tony Blair is trapped between the old world and the new. The tug of the old world is once again tugging at Britain, now an alternative to following America blindly exists. For the past half century, Britain has been forced to take a backseat to the power of America, going along with America’s decisions based out of need. With the advent of the European Union, Britain now has a partner that is closer, less belligerent and less domineering. To add to that, the EU is both more open to trade, and an easier trading partner, due to it being much closer geographically. The English people don’t appear to want war, add to that the fact that Tony Blair’s own cabinet is divided against him. Should Britain invade Iraq alongside the United States, and the cakewalk theory holds true, then it is probable that Tony Blair will be removed from power in the 2006 elections. Should the cakewalk theory blow up in their proverbial faces, then England’s allegiance could quite possibly fully sway from America to the European Union, adding a great amount of strength to the EU. An English shift in allegiance could easily balance the EU against America, effectively it could create a second superpower. Such a counterbalance could act to check American aggression and “policing.” This year marks a time of change. As the world finishes sorting itself out after the end of the Cold War over a decade ago, various powers are attempting to control whatever they possibly can. Other nations are drawing together to attempt to counter the aggression of others, and some are becoming increasingly isolationistic. Whatever the reasons, this year will mark a great change in international politics that will be felt for years to come.

2003: The Time of Troubles