January 9th, 2009
Some critics of Israel’s military action in Gaza charge that its extensive use of American-origin weapons violates US arms transfer laws. Whatever the merits of that particular charge, it is the type of issue that an arms trade treaty would regularly be called on to settle. The proposed arms trade treaty (ATT), on which negotiations […]
Read MoreJanuary 5th, 2009
The Obama Administration’s promise of early action to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is shaping up to become a direct challenge to the prominently declared views of his Defense Secretary. President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was unambiguous:[i] “I will work with the U.S. Senate to secure ratification […]
Read MoreJanuary 2nd, 2009
It has long been blindingly obvious that the only sure way to prevent the use of nuclear weapons is to eliminate them, but the politics of arms control has never really been drawn to the obvious – until now, that is. This year could be a turning point for nuclear disarmament. That sounds like the […]
Read MoreDecember 18th, 2008
Despite widespread complaints about the sorry state of Canadian military spending, Canadian contributions to international peace and security are more heavily weighted toward the military than they are in key European middle power countries. Given the UN Security Council’s recent attention to Article 26 of the UN Charter,[i] it is worth asking whether the world’s […]
Read MoreDecember 10th, 2008
The postings in this space continue the IGLOO Expert Blog, “Disarming Conflict,” which has appeared at http://www.igloo.org/disarmingconflict since September 2006. The current site is temporary while a new blog site is constructed at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (roughly by March 09). Disarming Conflict is focused on initiatives, policies, regulations, and security cooperation measures […]
Read MoreFebruary 18th, 2008
One of the more wrongheaded, but still ubiquitous, complaints voiced in the current Canadian debate over Afghanistan is that the Germans and others with forces in the north are not doing any “heavy lifting” and thus are both undermining the fight against the Taliban and – which some seem to find even more disturbing – […]
Read MoreFebruary 16th, 2008
Neither the Manley-Harper formula that focuses on intensified efforts to militarily “clear” more parts of the country of Taliban insurgents, nor the alternative that focuses more on holding and developing (economic, governance, reliable security institutions) those parts of the country that are already cleared of the insurgency, can obviously guarantee success in Afghanistan. Neither can assure […]
Read MoreFebruary 16th, 2008
Neither the Manley-Harper formula that focuses on intensified efforts to militarily “clear” more parts of the country of Taliban insurgents, nor the alternative that focuses more on holding and developing (economic, governance, reliable security institutions) those parts of the country that are already cleared of the insurgency, can obviously guarantee success in Afghanistan. Neither can assure […]
Read MoreFebruary 15th, 2008
The Manley Panel clarified and actually generated consensus on at least one important element of a coherent Afghanistan policy, namely, that Canada should not be putting its soldiers at major risk in support of a military strategy that stands little chance of succeeding. That may seem obvious enough, but given that Canada took on the […]
Read MoreFebruary 14th, 2008
This and the next five postings, on successive days, will review and elaborate the themes addressed in the Feb. 8 posting.[i] As noted then, the Manley Panel reinforced a prominent misperception in the current debate over the role of Canadian forces in Afghanistan, namely that “there is not yet a peace to keep in Afghanistan.” […]
Read More