As the nature of conflict has changed from that of interstate conflict to transnational attacks, the world must discuss how to effectively combat terrorism in a way that minimizes harm. Throughout the following paper, I will summarize four contrasting responses to terrorism, included in a document adapted from Terrorism: How Should We Respond, of the Choices Program at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University. I will then discuss why I believe Canada’s most effective response to terrorism would be a unique combination of Options Two and Four. I believe that Canada should embrace relations with the international community, and seek solutions to terrorism as a global issue. This response would satisfy …show more content…
This option states that full support of the United Nations will improve Canada’s relations with the international community, and strengthen the international response to terrorism, refusing any potential hiding place for terrorists. However, some argue that Canadian interests should take precedence over the international community, especially considering the failure of the United Nations conventions to effectively stop terrorism so far. Joining an international coalition results in supporting initiatives that Canada may not support, and for this, many criticize the ability of the United Nations to fairly represent and protect all nations in the face of terrorism. Option Three suggests Canada assume a defensive position by building national defenses, lowering the foreign policy profile and remaining low-profile for terrorists. This option maintains that cutting foreign aid programs, cutting back on foreign investment and reducing military presence abroad will allow Canada the opportunity to reduce its profile as a target for terrorists. In order to maintain this reservation, defending Canadian territory includes the establishment of a national identity card, monitoring of high-risk ethnic groups, allowance for broader communications monitoring, and general tightening of immigration laws. This option would succeed in helping Canada be prepared for the changing nature of conflict,
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.
Recently there have been two “anti-terrorism” bills that are really affecting Canadian citizens who weren’t born here. Bill C-24 is an attack on duel citizens that were not born in Canada or are eligible for another citizenship. This bill allows these the Canadian government to revoke your citizenship if you have committed or are suspected of serious crimes. They could also deport you. This creates the idea of second class citizens. Some are not able to be targeted well others are immune. Bill C-51 is one that is really complicated, but the something it does are: It gives CSIS and the RCMP larger power in order to “prevent” terrorism. The issue is no checks and balances, no safeguards, and nothing in place to make sure what CSIS is doing is legal. It also even has allowed CSIS to break the charter of rights with permission without the public ever being notified. It also vastly expands our definition of security and that of which terrorism falls under. The terms definition of terrorism is very vague. Threats of terrorism can now be considered: interfering with public safety, the economy or financial security of Canada East. This could trap illegal protestors or the blockading railways and much more under terrorism charges. The bill also effects a lot more and threatens the rights and freedoms of many
What's the great urgency to mass the large force of RCMP to go in and take down the camp? I'm rather curious. Are they undertaking a test drive of Bill C-51 or exactly what's going on here?"
On June 9th 2015, Stephen Harper and the Canadian government passed Bill C-51. It’s an anti terrorism act, with only the best intentions at mind for Canada and its national security. However since it’s approval, there has been much controversy surrounding the bill. There are five key changes in Bill C-51 and many Canadians aren’t pleased with them, such as, the right to exchange information between national agencies, unwarranted arrests and also the increase in surveillance that will occur with both of these new conditions (Watters, 1). Bill C-51 also interferes with sections of the Charter and other key legal philosophies such as the Magna Carta and the Rule of Law.
Canada has been highly involved in global issues and has held itself on moral grounds, despite some opposing influence. Canada’s sovereign and morally just approach can be seen in many events in the 20th century, such as in the Second World War, the Korean War, the Suez Crisis and the Vietnam War. As well, Canada’s imperfect, yet improving immigration policy displays the acceptance and unbiased approach Canada has towards people of different backgrounds. Despite some minor missteps and impediments, Canada would make an excellent choice for UN Advisor Country for the reason that Canada has spearheaded much global intervention, especially for such a small (population-wise) and unassuming country.
This is one evidence of how much Canada cares about national security and is willing to go to any extent. The October Crisis case seems like nothing compared to the acts of domestic terrorism that have occurred in other countries, and I think that to achieve the level of national security that Canada has acquired these countries should practice policies like the war measures act to solidify their national security. A country that I know will benefit from such a law is India.
One of the members of NATO was and still is the United States and because it is the most powerful of the members most of NATO activity is directed towards American policy (pg. 194 Counterpoints: Exploring Canadian Issues). This made it hard for Canadians to gain more power and keep their own identity. However, in 1956, when a war broke out over the Suez Canal in Egypt, Lester B. Pearson “proposed that a multinational peacekeeping force be created and installed in the war zone to maintain ceasefires and oversee the withdrawal of troops.” (pg.200 Counterpoints: Exploring Canadian Issues) Since this proposal to the United Nations (which Canada toke part in creating the Charter of) rather than fighting, which the superpowers of Russia and the United States take part in, Canada mostly maintains peace on the battlefields. This has given Canada an identity of a peacekeeping nation. However, the United States has still been able to influence Canada to contribute more than peace to wars. In the 1990 Persian Gulf War “Canada contributed two destroyers, a supply ship, a squadron of CF-18 fighter jets, a field hospital, and hundreds of military personal” (pg. 274 Counterpoints: Exploring Canadian Issues) to help the United States take out the Iraqi forces. Even before this occurred, Prime Minister Pierre Eliott Trudeau, and many Canadians, started wanting more independence from the United States. Therefore, Trudeau reduced Canada’s NATO involvement in Europe.
The purpose of this act is to encourage and monitor the sharing of information between Canadian government institutions in order to protect Canada against activities that threaten the security of Canada, but this bill not only fails to fix those flaws, it recreates and causes more underlying problems without adding any meaningful protection to ensure that the powers it grants will not be abused. The bill allows information sharing across 17 government institutions for a wide range of purposes, most of which have nothing to do with terrorism. After the bill was passed, it has raised serious concerns regarding the potential impact is has on the basic civil liberties of all Canadians. The new legislation significantly expands CSIS’ (Canadian Security
Hence, Canada’s emergence in the geo-strategic country was an illustration of its hardline stance against terrorism. It asserted its dominance in the South Asian country and displayed the characteristics of a principle power willing and ready to fight any threat against Canada and its people.
What is Mr. Trudeau solution? A “guarantee” that all warrants would respect the Charter and the judges. Whether this “guarantee” will hold up is questionable but at the very least it is better than nothing.
Nevertheless, this policy is criticized for its disregard of the globalized nature of terrorism, for its indifference to the role of international law and global cooperation in maintaining international support, for its neglect to consider the risks that supporting foreign indigenous forces may engender, for the inevitable resource drain such a policy would generate, and for anti-Canadian narrative that would be incited by terrorists, simply leading to increased attacks. Conversely, another counter-terrorism strategy Canada may pursue is to support UN leadership in the fight against terrorism. Recognizing the global nature of terrorism, proponents of this policy argue that Canada must strengthen the UN’s effectiveness on security matters to ensure any international response to this issue reflects the interests and the needs of all in the global community. Under such a policy, Canada would have to debate all possible counter-terror strategies in front of the UN and would have to adhere to established treaties and work towards drafting more resolutions aimed to limit chemical, nuclear and biological weapons. Additionally, such policy proponents encourage Canada to become an active participant in established international institutions such as the ICC. This approach to dealing with terrorism is criticized however, opponents claiming that the UN is ineffective, slow and tied up by bureaucracy. Moreover, the UN’s
Canada has created a strategy to tackle global and domestic threat. The Strategy includes the activities of government departments that are involved in counter-terrorism and how the activities contribute to the Government’s Strategy for countering terrorism (Building Resilience Against Terrorism: Canada's Counter-terrorism Strategy, 2015, Figure 1). The strategy is laid out in a clear and unified format and four elements, which include:
As a result, CAF’s federal contract for language and employment training for immigrants was severed. This action was then defended by claiming that CAF was supporting terrorism. Overall, as evident from these two scenarios, it is apparent that Canada has placed a strict restriction on what can or cannot be said, either for Israel or the war in Afghanistan, and uses the threat of pulling funding or contracts should a negative comment be uttered. An atmosphere has been created that forces NGOs to carefully consider what they are to say or risk the loss of government funding. Such is only one of the many sort of restrictions now placed on citizens within
Bill C-51 also known as the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, is a bill that was first tabled in Parliament in January 2015. It was introduced to enhance Canada’s original anti-terror laws which were created shortly after the terrorist attack on September 11th 2001 in the United States of America. Moreover, the need to revise and amend these laws became even more evident after recent attacks both in Canada and abroad. In doing so the government recognized the need to adopt a more preventative approach to dealing with internal and external threats. However, there are a large number of individuals, groups and institutions which opposed this bill. This was evident in March of 2015 when political protests were held and over fifty-five rallies took place across Canada (Lepore, 1). The majority of those opposed to the new anti-terror legislation expressed concerns with three major components of the bill and the vagueness; to privacy concerns with the new information sharing between agencies, new amendments to the Criminal Code surrounding terrorism offences and the increased powers provided to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS); specifically their perceived lack of oversight. Although this piece of legislation is crucial to the safety and security of Canada against acts of terrorism it requires some amendments in order to ensure proper oversight and respect for Canadian values. This paper will argue that changes need to be made to the CSIS act, specifically regarding
Over the years there have been significant changes in how terrorism is carried out. With the changes in how terrorism is carried out there have also been dramatic changes in how countries counter terrorist attacks. The modifications in the way a country counters these terrorist attacks affects international relations of these countries. These issues bring about the question of how have counter terrorism methods affected international relations. To answer this question several things must be addressed which are, methodology, history of terrorism, and a literature review of multiple authors that have discussed this subject.