Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre’s musing on how to deal with terrorists certainly generated a lot of reaction among Defence Watch’s readers. The general tone of the emails and discussions was that Poilievre is “out to lunch” and “out of his depth.”
In October 2010, Poilievre allegedly got impatient waiting at a Parliament Hill checkpoint and pressed a button to open the security gate and drove his car through without being identified and without having his vehicle inspected. He later apologized
Poilievre on CBC Power and Politics explained to host Evan Solomon just what was wrong with trying to understand the root causes of terrorism (the Conservatives have been at Justin Trudeau for suggesting it might make sense to do just that). “The root causes of terrorism is terrorists,” said Poilievre. ”That’s how we respond.”
One Defence Watch reader who in his role in the military was heavily involved in strategic policy has written this:
To an informed audience it would appear that Poilievre’s comments contradict the world’s leading Conservative government policy statement and assessments. In the UK’s Strategic Defence and Security Review, British Prime Minister David Cameron (who Prime Minister Stephen Harper finds as his intellectual peer and closest political ally) and his Conservative led coalition government have a articulated a mature and clear understanding of the strategic issues at play with regards to countering terrorism. It would appear that Justin Trudeau’s recent comments reflect a very similar broader strategic world view and are, in fact, closer aligned to other world leaders on this complicated issue of dealing with terrorism.
The internationally acclaimed and recognized 2010 UK Strategic Defence and Security Review stated that:
“We will continue to give the highest priority to tackling the terrorist threat, protecting our operational capabilities, and reforming how we tackle radicalization.”
“Over the decades ahead, this trend is likely to continue to increase in scale and sophistication, with enormous implications for the nature of modern conflict. We need to be prepared as a country to meet this growing challenge, building on the advanced capabilities we already have. We have re-assessed and reformed our approach in a wide range of other areas. All too often, we focus on military hardware.”
“To respond to growing uncertainty about longer-term risks and threats, we will pursue an over-arching approach which identifies and manages risks before they materialise in the UK, with a focus on preventing conflicts and building local capacity to deal with problems.”
“Tackle at root the causes of instability in countries posing the greatest threat to the UK, to stop people becoming terrorists.”
“ We have learned important lessons about what works best in these environments: we must address the root causes of conflict and fragility.”
“We cannot eliminate terrorism. We can reduce the risk to the UK and our interests overseas. The National Security Tasks and Guidelines i set out an approach that tackles terrorism at every stage and integrates our domestic and overseas work.”
“A key principle of our adaptable approach is to tackle threats at source. We must focus on those fragile and conflict-affected countries where the risks are high, our interests are most at stake and where we know we can have an impact. To help bring enduring stability to such countries, we will increase significantly our support to conflict prevention and poverty reduction.
Other examples from the Strategic Defence and Security Review:
“provide clearer direction with a greater focus on results through the new Building Stability Overseas Strategy to be published in spring 2011;
· enhance the UK’s system of early warning for countries at risk of instability to ensure that our response is timely, appropriate and informed by the UK national interest;
· increase Official Development Assistance (ODA) to 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2013. The main objective of ODA is, and will continue to be, the economic development and welfare of developing countries, with all UK ODA remaining fully consistent with OECD rules. By using 30% of ODA to support fragile and conflict-affected states and tackle the drivers of instability we will help some of the poorest countries in the world address the root causes of their problems, build more responsible and accountable governments and strengthen security and justice overseas;
· direct more non-operational defence engagement overseas towards conflict prevention, security sector reform and capability building in priority countries, including through: establishing new training teams; running joint exercises; attaching senior civilian policy advisers to foreign defence.
Poilievre and the Harper government might want to take a lesson or two from the UK when it comes to the issue of terrorism.
Original Article
Source: blogs.ottawacitizen.com
Author: David Pugliese
In October 2010, Poilievre allegedly got impatient waiting at a Parliament Hill checkpoint and pressed a button to open the security gate and drove his car through without being identified and without having his vehicle inspected. He later apologized
Poilievre on CBC Power and Politics explained to host Evan Solomon just what was wrong with trying to understand the root causes of terrorism (the Conservatives have been at Justin Trudeau for suggesting it might make sense to do just that). “The root causes of terrorism is terrorists,” said Poilievre. ”That’s how we respond.”
One Defence Watch reader who in his role in the military was heavily involved in strategic policy has written this:
To an informed audience it would appear that Poilievre’s comments contradict the world’s leading Conservative government policy statement and assessments. In the UK’s Strategic Defence and Security Review, British Prime Minister David Cameron (who Prime Minister Stephen Harper finds as his intellectual peer and closest political ally) and his Conservative led coalition government have a articulated a mature and clear understanding of the strategic issues at play with regards to countering terrorism. It would appear that Justin Trudeau’s recent comments reflect a very similar broader strategic world view and are, in fact, closer aligned to other world leaders on this complicated issue of dealing with terrorism.
The internationally acclaimed and recognized 2010 UK Strategic Defence and Security Review stated that:
“We will continue to give the highest priority to tackling the terrorist threat, protecting our operational capabilities, and reforming how we tackle radicalization.”
“Over the decades ahead, this trend is likely to continue to increase in scale and sophistication, with enormous implications for the nature of modern conflict. We need to be prepared as a country to meet this growing challenge, building on the advanced capabilities we already have. We have re-assessed and reformed our approach in a wide range of other areas. All too often, we focus on military hardware.”
“To respond to growing uncertainty about longer-term risks and threats, we will pursue an over-arching approach which identifies and manages risks before they materialise in the UK, with a focus on preventing conflicts and building local capacity to deal with problems.”
“Tackle at root the causes of instability in countries posing the greatest threat to the UK, to stop people becoming terrorists.”
“ We have learned important lessons about what works best in these environments: we must address the root causes of conflict and fragility.”
“We cannot eliminate terrorism. We can reduce the risk to the UK and our interests overseas. The National Security Tasks and Guidelines i set out an approach that tackles terrorism at every stage and integrates our domestic and overseas work.”
“A key principle of our adaptable approach is to tackle threats at source. We must focus on those fragile and conflict-affected countries where the risks are high, our interests are most at stake and where we know we can have an impact. To help bring enduring stability to such countries, we will increase significantly our support to conflict prevention and poverty reduction.
Other examples from the Strategic Defence and Security Review:
“provide clearer direction with a greater focus on results through the new Building Stability Overseas Strategy to be published in spring 2011;
· enhance the UK’s system of early warning for countries at risk of instability to ensure that our response is timely, appropriate and informed by the UK national interest;
· increase Official Development Assistance (ODA) to 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2013. The main objective of ODA is, and will continue to be, the economic development and welfare of developing countries, with all UK ODA remaining fully consistent with OECD rules. By using 30% of ODA to support fragile and conflict-affected states and tackle the drivers of instability we will help some of the poorest countries in the world address the root causes of their problems, build more responsible and accountable governments and strengthen security and justice overseas;
· direct more non-operational defence engagement overseas towards conflict prevention, security sector reform and capability building in priority countries, including through: establishing new training teams; running joint exercises; attaching senior civilian policy advisers to foreign defence.
Poilievre and the Harper government might want to take a lesson or two from the UK when it comes to the issue of terrorism.
Original Article
Source: blogs.ottawacitizen.com
Author: David Pugliese
No comments:
Post a Comment