Apolitical Staples

Andrew Coyne is right about one thing. Canada is not - and probably never will be - a player in the M/East. We don’t really have any leverage over any of the state or non-state actors in that region.

Therefore, PM Harper’s comments will have an impact - to the extent people care in the heat of the summer - only on internal Canadian politics.

On that front, I am not sure it will be an asset. Time will tell if it is a hindrance.

Nuance is actually not a bad thing. Most successful world leaders are rather good at it. It gives you flexibility.

M/East politics is not black and white. It is complex. Therefore, a response to an event should likewise be textured and layered allowing Canadian diplomats maximum latitude.

Jingos don’t work much in resolving armed hostilities, in the M/East, or anywhere else. Maybe Harper v2.0 will edit some of them out.

Didn’t a jingo end the cold war?

I wondered how long it would be until somebody started quoted Churchill. It’s just a fancy way to finese Godwin’s law. Blech.

That should read quoting not quoted.

The blogosphere needs more Churchill.

Nuance is actually not a bad thing. Most successful world leaders are rather good at it. It gives you flexibility.

Reality is that the record is ambiguous. There are lots of leaders that are and were applauded for their clear language. But I guess it all depends on what your definition of “is” is. :)

“Nuance is actually not a bad thing. Most successful world leaders are rather good at it. It gives you flexibility.”

I guess you could provide an extensive list of such great leaders.

Sure Jim.

Reagan v2.0 - when he left his jingos behind and actually started talking to Gorbachev, which led to the Reykjavik summit and the start of the Eastern Bloc’s collapse.

Thatcher - when she suggested that Gorbachev was someone we could deal with.

Yitzhak Rabin - who dealt with Arafat because he knew that the path to peace is through your enemies, not your fans.

Jawaharlal Nehru, who realized that India’s future depended on non-alignment.

Nelson Mandela, who forgave his white tormenters because he realized that his nation needed to heal.

A succession of South Korean leaders in their dealings with the North.

Just about any UN Secretary General, including the much maligned Kofi Annan.

Need more?

“Reagan v2.0 - when he left his jingos behind and actually started talking to Gorbachev, which led to the Reykjavik summit and the start of the Eastern Bloc’s collapse.”

Not bad.

“Thatcher - when she suggested that Gorbachev was someone we could deal with.”

Again, not bad.

“Yitzhak Rabin - who dealt with Arafat because he knew that the path to peace is through your enemies, not your fans.”

Alas, same region, no peace.

“Jawaharlal Nehru, who realized that India’s future depended on non-alignment.”

Forgetting that India and Pakistan have had several wars since 1947…

“Nelson Mandela, who forgave his white tormenters because he realized that his nation needed to heal.”

I’d give more kudos to Mandela if not for knowing that murder is rampant in SA.

“A succession of South Korean leaders in their dealings with the North.”

Thanking their lucky stars for the might of the USA all along.

“Just about any UN Secretary General, including the much maligned Kofi Annan.”

Annan is a joke.

“Need more?”

Yes. I thought you’d do much better.

Thanks for trying.

It’s not about whether or not Canada retains credibility as an honest broker, Greg. It’s that Canada now sancions terrorism. The Israeli government are undeniably terrorists and Harper supports their terrrorism.

“Since you became Prime Minister, you have moved away from Canada’s traditional honest broker role in the Palestine/Israel conflict.”

Letter written to Prime Minister Paul Martin March, 2005.

My how the language looks similar.

“Reagan v2.0 - when he left his jingos behind and actually started talking to Gorbachev, which led to the Reykjavik summit and the start of the Eastern Bloc’s collapse.”

Someone’s rewriting history. Reagan’s principles regarding the defence of the US and NATO nations throughout his Presidency was what had brought the Soviet Union to the table. If anything, there was consistency in the Reagan administration’s treatment of the USSR throughout, rather than a “nuanced” approach that “abandoned the Jingos”.

The same could be said for Thatcher.

Nuanced leadership is the opposite of principled leadership.

Of all the leaders that you have characterized as “nuanced”—apart from Reagan and Thatcher, all have been uniformly unsuccessful in the leadership of their governments.

RJ - you seem to be deliberately misconstruing history. Or, being just plain ignorant, especially when characterizing Rabin and Mandela and Nehru as being unsuccessful. Perhaps, their accomplishments cannot stand up to your successes, whatever they are, but they certainly stand up to most leaders of the past century.

Nuanced leadership means you understand the complexities and leave yourself room to maneuver when the unexpected occurs. It does not preclude principles, and is most certainly not in opposition to it.

The PM of a nation is not the High Priest of a Cult (or the Chief of some obscure advocacy group) who can expect his followers to clap wildly and yell Hallelujah no matter what pops out of his mouth. He needs to demonstrate that he understands the complexities of every region and every conflict, and is sufficiently intelligent to avoid the temptation of constructing a position that either prematurely forces a nation into positions that may later prove to be untenable, or leaves his party - which will not forgive him if he fails to do better or gain a majority next time around - needlessly exposed electorally.

Are we ignoring McClelland, or can I suggest he gets a dictionary and looks up the meaning of ‘terrorist’? He clearly doesn’t know the meaning of the word.

The Reykjavik summit, nuanced? Reagan called the Russian bluff in rather stark terms.

“RJ - you seem to be deliberately misconstruing history. Or, being just plain ignorant, especially when characterizing Rabin and Mandela and Nehru as being unsuccessful. Perhaps, their accomplishments cannot stand up to your successes, whatever they are, but they certainly stand up to most leaders of the past century.”

Of those discussing history here, I can assure you that I am not the one misconstruing history, deliberately or otherwise.

Since we have already shredded your mischaracterizations of Reagan and Thatcher, shall we dispense with the remainder of your leaders?

Rabin—what you cite as his greatest act of attempting to seek peace with Arafat, much of the world would now construe as a blunder. The corrupt Arafat regime did little to advance its stated aims—namely the development of a Palestinian nation, and ensure security or stability in the middle east. Ergo, failure.

Mandela. Mandela was handed the leadership of the nation of South Africa after the Apartheid regime decided that they could not continue. The net effect of his leadership meant an explosion in crime and the atrophy of the South African economy. The South Africa of today has not advanced much beyond the South Africa of 1994. Ergo, failure.

South Korea: The stance of appeasement and engagement of North Korea by ROK has seen the emergence of North Korea as a significant threat in the region, and has seen the North Korean economy shattered. The intended aim of the South Korean government was to see South Korea’s security increase—this has not happened. Ergo, failure.

Seeing a trend here?

As far as Nehru goes, it depends on who you want to listen to—economists that claimed that India’s economic growth was hindered by his policy of economic planning, Tibetans that believed that his nuance led China to believe that India was weak, and as a result contributed to China’s decision to occupy Tibet. Or that his military and diplomatic misadventures in 1962 led to India’s humbling defeat at the hands of Chinese forces. And of course, there was that whole thing with Pakistan over Kashmir that’s already been mentioned.

Overall, I’m not seeing much in Nehru’s bio that indicates that “nuance” served either him—or India—well.

And as for the UN—care to name any of the “successess” (other than the Oil for Food scandal) that their “nuance” has led to?

And thus endeth the history lesson, proving that nuanced leadership is no leadership at all.

“The corrupt Arafat regime did little to advance its stated aims…”

Sorry, that should read “Treating with the corrupt Arafat regime did little to advance the stated aims…”

“Evil empire”

Yes, about as nuanced as a bullet to the head.

Unless perhaps by “evil” he really meant “loving” or perhaps “benevolent”.

RJ: Mandela, Nehru, Rabin - none of them match your “high” standards. Hmmm … I guess the luxury of living in a country floating on a sea of natural resources, and protected (directly and indirectly) by the US, blinds one somewhat to the contexts in which foreign leaders find themselves.

Perhaps you would wish to list a few “non-nuanced” successful leaders of yours, and either illuminate or amuse us.

My guess is that your ignorance and incapacity to objectively evaluate history, so blatantly obvious above, will once again shine through.

But, you could prove me wrong, not being immune to imperfections myself.

I don’t think I want to embarass you anymore than I already have cb. I will, however, leave you with these diads for you to ponder:

Nuanced: Carter Principled: Reagan

Nuanced: Chamberlain Principled: Churchill

Nuanced: Martin Principled: Harper

Heh.

There are currently 1700 UN “peacekeepers” stationed between Israel and Lebanon made of soldiers from India and Italy to name a few. How effective are they? How effective have peacekeepers been in the past 20 years? Strange how we never mourned the loss of over 120 of our “peacekeeper” in the Kosivo conflict. How many did we lose in Cyprus those 30 years we were there… dozens!

The Liberal’s myth that we are a neutral country is a lie. We have never been a neutral country. We have always taken sides – the Boer war, WW1, WW2 and Korea to name a few. We fought in the 1st Gulf war and are in Afghanistan.

When we had a real army of 80,000 soldiers back before crazy Pierre we were respected because we were able to back up our words with might.

What made us an honest broker was that we never had a vision of land grabbing as the spoils of war.

So, less on the Liberal lies, the moocher’s group hugs and sing-a-longs and let’s face the real world and call a spade a spade.