Cavilling, Forever Nit-Picking
That's what the opposition does; they take their role seriously. Not their role as elected officials in the Parliament of Canada, entrusted to waive personal dislikes and to fairly weigh options that are in the country's best interests, setting aside partisan politics for the greater good. Not that, but to oppose. Oppose what, after all? Well, it would appear just about anything that the party in power, the current government, proposes to dispose.
If it's done neutrally, fairly, with a view to representing the best interests of the country, no one could quibble with that. But when it's straight-out political, in that 'my party of choice has a better agenda than yours', then we're in trouble. The kind of trouble that, for example, Canadian troops face in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, with the very public squabbles between the prime minister of the country and the leader of the official opposition highlighting uncertainty.
Which the Taliban and their backers are only too happy to exploit, as why would they not? If indeed Canada's position in Afghanistan is that tenuous that there is not universal acceptance within the various political parties of our position there and the need for it, then any helpful little nudges on their part may hasten the collectivity to a firmer response, and a pull-out. Leaving the field to the fundamentalist Islamists to repeat their previous administration.
Look, the prime minister is confident that Canada has committed itself morally in defense of eventual normalcy in Afghanistan, along with Canada's NATO partners. That Canada's presence in that country is giving hope for the future, enabling Afghans to discover what their country can attain to. To all those who consider the man intransigently set on his own decision making, Stephen Harper has unsettled his critics by demonstrating that he can listen.
And having done so, and consulted with Liberal leader Stephane Dion, he has chosen to accept key portions of the Liberal position and the alterations they put forward, for the purpose of reaching a consensus. Resulting in a new motion proposing an extension of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, accepting the Liberal ideas, and incorporating them into the larger proposal, clarifying Canada's future focus on reconstruction, development and training.
And setting a firm pull-out date from Kandahar - just what the Liberals have been clamouring for. But now that their demands have been met, they're suddenly uncertain, and to Mr. Harper's statement that "It seems clear that we have moved significantly toward the kind of bipartisan consensus that can be presented to Parliament for ratification", the Liberal defence critic glumly responds it's too precipitate; his party may or may not sign on.
Stephane Dion still intends to grill the prime minister over a five-month disparity in the Liberal- recommended pull-out date (February) and the date the prime minister has indicated (July). The motion will be tabled for debate in the House of Commons, giving the opportunity for a two-day discussion. And this will be a matter of confidence. Defeat the motion and take the country to the polls.
The prime minister gently offered a little reality check to his critics and his larger audience: "If Canada wants to contribute to global security, we will have to participate in UN peace-enforcement missions, not just traditional peacekeeping, as well as intelligence sharing, and and development." The simple fact appears to be that the future may call more frequently upon Canada to take part in more combat missions.
And gruffly outspoken General Rick Hillier warns Canadians that there is a fall-out from this public bickering over Canada's mission in Afghanistan. He doesn't make claim that assaults against Canadian troops owe their stepped-up occurrence to the parliamentary verbal assaults against our presence there, but he does caution that this may be exactly what is occurring.
Where once military adversaries sought to crack coded messages, they now need only to turn to the Internet, to access information freely available for public consumption thanks to our valued freedom of information, and casual airing of our nation's discontent.
If it's done neutrally, fairly, with a view to representing the best interests of the country, no one could quibble with that. But when it's straight-out political, in that 'my party of choice has a better agenda than yours', then we're in trouble. The kind of trouble that, for example, Canadian troops face in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, with the very public squabbles between the prime minister of the country and the leader of the official opposition highlighting uncertainty.
Which the Taliban and their backers are only too happy to exploit, as why would they not? If indeed Canada's position in Afghanistan is that tenuous that there is not universal acceptance within the various political parties of our position there and the need for it, then any helpful little nudges on their part may hasten the collectivity to a firmer response, and a pull-out. Leaving the field to the fundamentalist Islamists to repeat their previous administration.
Look, the prime minister is confident that Canada has committed itself morally in defense of eventual normalcy in Afghanistan, along with Canada's NATO partners. That Canada's presence in that country is giving hope for the future, enabling Afghans to discover what their country can attain to. To all those who consider the man intransigently set on his own decision making, Stephen Harper has unsettled his critics by demonstrating that he can listen.
And having done so, and consulted with Liberal leader Stephane Dion, he has chosen to accept key portions of the Liberal position and the alterations they put forward, for the purpose of reaching a consensus. Resulting in a new motion proposing an extension of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, accepting the Liberal ideas, and incorporating them into the larger proposal, clarifying Canada's future focus on reconstruction, development and training.
And setting a firm pull-out date from Kandahar - just what the Liberals have been clamouring for. But now that their demands have been met, they're suddenly uncertain, and to Mr. Harper's statement that "It seems clear that we have moved significantly toward the kind of bipartisan consensus that can be presented to Parliament for ratification", the Liberal defence critic glumly responds it's too precipitate; his party may or may not sign on.
Stephane Dion still intends to grill the prime minister over a five-month disparity in the Liberal- recommended pull-out date (February) and the date the prime minister has indicated (July). The motion will be tabled for debate in the House of Commons, giving the opportunity for a two-day discussion. And this will be a matter of confidence. Defeat the motion and take the country to the polls.
The prime minister gently offered a little reality check to his critics and his larger audience: "If Canada wants to contribute to global security, we will have to participate in UN peace-enforcement missions, not just traditional peacekeeping, as well as intelligence sharing, and and development." The simple fact appears to be that the future may call more frequently upon Canada to take part in more combat missions.
And gruffly outspoken General Rick Hillier warns Canadians that there is a fall-out from this public bickering over Canada's mission in Afghanistan. He doesn't make claim that assaults against Canadian troops owe their stepped-up occurrence to the parliamentary verbal assaults against our presence there, but he does caution that this may be exactly what is occurring.
Where once military adversaries sought to crack coded messages, they now need only to turn to the Internet, to access information freely available for public consumption thanks to our valued freedom of information, and casual airing of our nation's discontent.
Labels: Crisis Politics, Government of Canada
posted by Pieface | 5:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home