Musings on a Minister
Since I spent my morning cross-country skiing in Gatineau Parc and enjoying the fresh waffles cooked up by the staff of the Royal Norwegian Embassy for their annual Norway Day, it's probably a good time to make a few comments about the same country's Foreign Minister, who spoke at Carleton last week during his brief visit to Canada.
Minister Jonas Gahr Store was asked to speak to the smallish crowd of mostly diplomats and scholars about our two countries' role in peace and reconciliation. Unlike many politicians who might devote such a speech to underscoring Norway's various successful foreign policy endeavors - from brokering a temporary peace in Sri Lanka to bringing together the Israeli's and the Palestinians during the Oslo peace process of the early 1990s - the Minister articulated thoughtfully and deliberately Norway's approach to such challenges.
While acknowledging the limited success of these efforts, he also stressed the importance of dialogue and engagement with all the major parties to a conflict. Despite his imperfect English, he was still able to draw a distinction between these two spheres of activity. Essentially, while 'dialogue' can simply entail keeping open all lines of communication between parties, which might lead to 'backchannel' or secret negotiations such as the ones that produced the Oslo Accord in the early 90s, 'engagement' is much more formal and public. His ability to draw this distinction made him resemble an expert in international affairs far more than it did a politician, and for this alone he should receive full credit.
I could go on about the numerous other points in his address that struck a chord, but I'll only expand upon his emphasis on the international community (read the US, UK and Canada) needing to undertake a much more comprehensive approach to its efforts in Afghanistan. If we insist on being there, (and here I'm editorializing a bit), military engagement - with a dash of reconstruction - isn't going to do it.
As Minister Store argued, what is crucial is the 'Afghanization' of the country's political and infrastructural reconstruction process. While the term is indeed as awkward as it is an oversimplification of the challenges facing that country, at its root it simply means that any interventions we choose to make must be perfectly transferable to the Aghfan context and be sustainable long after we have left.
Opening up lines of communication with the Taliban rather than isolating them completely and further dividing the country would fit well within the bounds of this type of intervention, and it is an idea that is quickly gaining currency.
One might wonder why I was so impressed by a Foreign Minister that could speak as coherently and thoughtfully on his country's foreign policy priorities and implementation strategy as did Minister Store. If this be the case, I need only direct you to his Canadian counterpart.
Minister Jonas Gahr Store was asked to speak to the smallish crowd of mostly diplomats and scholars about our two countries' role in peace and reconciliation. Unlike many politicians who might devote such a speech to underscoring Norway's various successful foreign policy endeavors - from brokering a temporary peace in Sri Lanka to bringing together the Israeli's and the Palestinians during the Oslo peace process of the early 1990s - the Minister articulated thoughtfully and deliberately Norway's approach to such challenges.
While acknowledging the limited success of these efforts, he also stressed the importance of dialogue and engagement with all the major parties to a conflict. Despite his imperfect English, he was still able to draw a distinction between these two spheres of activity. Essentially, while 'dialogue' can simply entail keeping open all lines of communication between parties, which might lead to 'backchannel' or secret negotiations such as the ones that produced the Oslo Accord in the early 90s, 'engagement' is much more formal and public. His ability to draw this distinction made him resemble an expert in international affairs far more than it did a politician, and for this alone he should receive full credit.
I could go on about the numerous other points in his address that struck a chord, but I'll only expand upon his emphasis on the international community (read the US, UK and Canada) needing to undertake a much more comprehensive approach to its efforts in Afghanistan. If we insist on being there, (and here I'm editorializing a bit), military engagement - with a dash of reconstruction - isn't going to do it.
As Minister Store argued, what is crucial is the 'Afghanization' of the country's political and infrastructural reconstruction process. While the term is indeed as awkward as it is an oversimplification of the challenges facing that country, at its root it simply means that any interventions we choose to make must be perfectly transferable to the Aghfan context and be sustainable long after we have left.
Opening up lines of communication with the Taliban rather than isolating them completely and further dividing the country would fit well within the bounds of this type of intervention, and it is an idea that is quickly gaining currency.
One might wonder why I was so impressed by a Foreign Minister that could speak as coherently and thoughtfully on his country's foreign policy priorities and implementation strategy as did Minister Store. If this be the case, I need only direct you to his Canadian counterpart.
posted by Per at 4:32 p.m.
<< Home