Eras Of Security Development And Fragile States : The Evolution Of Canadian Policy

Theoretically, it holds that the United States (US) invaded Afghanistan as a self-defense strategy following the 9/11 attacks. Practically, however, as US foreign policy is about conquest, self-protection and resource-extraction, it seeks strategic dominance of geographical space to sustain its global relevance. The rationality of the US suggests the need to continuously accumulate capital, resources and military proficiency to ensure autonomy. Therefore, a pragmatic reading into the motivation behind the invasion of Afghanistan negates the self-defense theory. Rather, the shifting coordinates of power within central and southern Asia crafted the perfect criteria for US intervention. This work explores the motivations and systemic cover-ups designed by the Bush administration in ordering military troops into Afghanistan in 2001. It will hold that this invasion was not just a War on Terror, but rather a tactic to ensure US prevalence within the region, and henceforth, the rest of the world. Thus, why did the US invade Afghanistan?

The foreign, military and economic policies of states, the intersections of these policies in areas of change or dispute, and the general structure of relations which they create, are all analysed in terms of aspirations to achieve national and/or international security. Security is most commonly associated with the alleviation of threats to cherished values (Williams; 2008). However this is a definition that is undesirably vague and a reflection of the inherent nature of security as an ‘essentially contested concept’ (Gallie; 1962). Security in the modern day context has many key concepts associated with it: uncertainty, war, terrorism, genocide and mass killing, ethnic conflict, coercion,

The society one lives in today is controlled by the flow of money. The use of wealth dictates the entire world, and as a result, power, success, and improvement come with the logical and thoughtful control of money. So why does Canada strive for success if the government can’t cut funds towards useless motions? The Canadian government should fund the military less. As of 2016, the Canadian government spent $19 billion, roughly 1.35% of Canada’s total GDP funding the military. Recent political debate has run into this topic: is spending $19 billion on the Canadian military logical? The disposition of this argument held in this essay believes it is not, and subsequently believes significant cuts in the military’s budget need to be made. The reason

Canada, was once a respected peacekeeper now a disgrace to its past. Canada was once the primary contributor to the United Nations for peacekeeping. Now Canada is not even close to being regarded as a contributor. Even the people in Canada do not think that Canada has any involvement in the peacekeeping business. Many people looked at Canada as a symbol of peace which many still do, but most do not know that Canada has fled from its old ways and now is just an image of the past. Canada is no longer presented as a peacekeeping country. Therefore Canada is not the peace keeping country it used to be because of its lack of support to the United Nations, Canada’s opinion on its duty as a peacekeeper, and the loss of influence as a peacekeeper.

The Canadian foreign policy of the 1930s has been a subject of scholarly inquiry for quite some time .In this paper, we compare the readings of Norman Hillmer,"Defence and Ideology: The Anglo-Canadian Military Alliance in the 1930's "Eayrs, James " A low Dishonest Decade" : Aspects of Canadian External Policy, 1931-1939.

In the midst of the October Crisis Pierre Trudeau handled the time of terrorism well. In this essay one will see how Trudeau handled the crisis excellently by examining the first domestic use of the War Measures Act which led to improvements on the Act, ensuring that Quebec did not become its own independent country, and how Canada stood behind and supported Quebec and Pierre Trudeau through the acts of violence led by the FLQ.

1. In President Obama’s speech at West Point, he announced that 30,000 additional troops would be sent to Afghanistan. He made this decision because he said it was vital to the United States’ national interest. The vital national interest at risk in President Obama’s address is the security and safety of the American people as well as the “security of our allies and the common security of the world.” By involving the military and increasing the troop strength, President Obama can achieve the objectives of his strategy. His objectives are to keep the Taliban from becoming powerful, prevent them from government rule, improve Afghanistan security forces and government so they can manage their own country and prevent Al Qaeda from

How did the October Crisis of 1970 affect Canada? Did Canada do the right things during this time? The October Crisis of 1970, some people may say that it was too great of a loss, but it was also a significant event that affected the country positively and negatively. It impacted Canada's national security which is a very important part of Canada moving forward, it also was the first major terrorist attack on Canadian soil and this caused the only use of the War Measures Act during peacetime. Canada’s national security is a crucial element to keeping the country safe, however Canada’s national security has changed greatly over the years.

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy as "the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states is no longer sufficient. Several alternative definitions are more helpful at highlighting aspects of foreign policy

A country can make quite a name for itself with its military prowess, but when the white flag waves, how can it keep itself relevant? It’s a question that begs answering, and has been answered, correctly and otherwise, in countless ways. In the aftermath of WWII, it was imperative that Canada answer this question for itself. The nation had become a powerful force on the field of battle, but as the war came to its close, Canada had to find a way to keep its status. In this, the country succeeded; with peacekeeping missions around the world, issues addressed at home, and disaster aid for those who needed it, it easily kept its relevance on a global scale. Even with the end

Operations in the post-9\11 era have been a major defence strategy to safeguard international security. As detailed in the Canada First Defence Strategy, the military will deliver the ability to conduct six core missions within Canada, North America and abroad, one of them being “lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period” . Operation Artemis is one of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) participation in counterterrorism and maritime security operations. In this essay, I will describe in detail how this operation is linked to Canada`s security and its importance in demonstrating solidarity with partners and allies, working together for peace and security in the maritime environment of the greater Middle East region

As the 20th century comes to an end, Canada is a transcontinental nation whose interests and representatives span the face of the globe and extend into every sphere of human behaviour. However this was not always the case. When the four colonies of British North America united to create Canada on July 1, 1867, the new country's future was by no means secure. Canada was a small country, with unsettled borders, vast empty spaces, and a large powerful neighbour, the United States. Confronting these challenges was difficult for the young country. Though Canada was independent in domestic matters, Britain retained control over its foreign policy. Over the next fifty or so years, Canada's leaders and its

All these important questions about terror and insecurity are a considerable part of the subject of international politics. In this regard, scholars have dedicated decades for understanding the relations between states in political, economic, social, and other

The rise of terrorist organizations post 9/11 has challenged nation-state borders and their sovereignty. The presence of insurgencies and terrorist organizations has begun to affect the legitimacy of governments externally and their internal sovereignty.

No global definition exists for states described as “fragile”, “failing”, or failed because they come in all shapes and sizes. Yet, countries that have failed at the basic responsibilities of governance and sovereign authority are generally lumped into this group. Fragile, failing, or failed states share similar characteristics including their inability to control their borders, loss of authority over insurgents, gangs, and warlords, and loss of legitimacy internally/internationally. Examples relevant today of countries that are fragile or failing, and on the path to failed status include Iraq and many of the Middle Eastern countries struggling to maintain their autonomy in the fight against ISIS. Other important indicators of failed states include: