Congobloggo

The history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is violent and bloody. Since its independence from Belgium, it has seen a nationalist dictator, the fall of its legal and judicial systems, road structure, and medcial facilities. It has seen many wars, the most recent of which has been on-going since 1998, a spin-off of the Rwandan genocide[1]. Rwandan Hutus saught refuge in the DRC, then called Zaire, assuming they would be helped by dictator Mobutu's alliance with Rwandan rebels. Civilians were faced with death and disease, while former militia re-formed, taking control over border regions. The UN mistakenly recognized the mini-dictators as refugees, giving them control of the region's food distribution, which lead to stronger, armed militias, able to continue their fight with Rwanda. In more recent times, the country itself was victim of what can only be called rape; exploited for its massive amounts of Coltan, a mineral necessary for the function of portable electronics, such as laptops, cellphones, and mp3 players. Until recently, the price for Coltan was incredibly high, and mining companies, both legal and not, were cashing-in, and the under-paid workers digging for it were paying for the developed world's electronics with their health, and occasionally, their lives.

In a country where the government has little authority over the majority of the country, simply due to their lack of presence, power struggles are fought daily between local and foreign militias, the Congolese army, and UN Peace Keeping forces[2]. In almost all cases, civilians are caught in the cross-fire. The situation has reached such a level of atrocity that MSD has reported incidents where aid workers offering vaccinations were used as 'bait' to lure civilians into attacks by the Congolese army, where not even the aid workers were spared. In a study conducted by the International Rescue Comittee, 5.4 million Congolese have died of easiliy preventable causes in the last decade.

It is clear that the situation in the Congo is, put simply, crap. The country is under the military rule of various organizations, more often than not extremist militias, and its civilians are suffering. In 200, the UN stepped in with MONUC; a multi-national aid operation, created to bring peace to the DRC, and safety and basic human rights (and the power to maintain them) to the people.

In recent times, Canada's role in the DRC has come into focus, because Canada has made clear its offer to take command of the UN's forces in the country. A verdict on the matter is expected within the next few weeks. Canadian Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, the liaison between the DRC's military and the UN's forces, who would presumably be in command should Canada be taken up on its offer, is aware of the challenges the Congo presents, and there are many: "the country's enormous size, its central location in an unstable region, and its lack of roads, power, and infrastructure." - The Globe and Mail. According to Leslie, a Canadian-run operation would undoubtedly bring positive results to the Congo. With the ability to speak French fluently, and thereby communicate effectively with locals, and a history noticeably lacking imperialism, Canadians are often greeted with warm smiles in the DRC.

Why, though, would Canada push to take command of the UN mission? Could this be a genuinely idealistic move? The chances of that are slim. Bringing lasting positive change in the Congo; solid infrastructure and road systems to connect the country, a legal system to uphold basic human rights and prosecute those who breach them, and health care facilities, are certainly beneficial, which no one is arguing. But, most likely more importantly than the results themselves, is the bragging rights that will come with them, and belong to whichever country can claim to have made the most difference in the DRC; the deadliest conflict since WWII. That title certainly brings status, and with it power. Both of which are necessary components of a winning application for one of two seats on the UN's Security Council, a position for which Canada is competing against Germany and Portugal.

Ah, this is familiar ground. Machiavellian ground. No matter the means, gain power. If Canada has decided the mean is through bettering one of the worst-off nations in the world, then whose complaining?

[1] Erin Conway-Smith, writing for the Globe and Mail, in March 2010

[2] Ibid

East Timmy

Canada is a country known for its assistance in international affairs, for no reason other than being 'the right thing to do.' Yet, for reasons unknown, the crisis of East Timor in the late 90s was a break from tradition. The aid sent in by the Canadian government was late, and of an inconsequentially small amount. Apparently, a simple 'Well, technically, we helped' sufficed for the situation.

So nice to see Machiavellian politics alive and well.

Iggy is My Homeboy

As Well as Some Superheroes'

Michael Ignatieff (henceforth known as Iggy, to save time) is a rare breed of Canadian politician. He's well-known (both in and outside of Canada), a rather important player in the game of Canadian politics, and has a liberal interventionist stance on world politics. Don't know what that means? That's fine, there aren't many people you (most likely haven't) heard of who share the self-title.

Courtesy of Wikipedia

Liberal Interventionism, as defined by Michael Cotey Morgan in his article Michael Ignatieff: Idealism and the challenge of the "lesser evil", is a balancing act between ethics and responsibility. It shares some common ground with Uncle Ben's advice to Spiderman: "With great power, comes great responsibility," and the idea that people and governments cannot idly sit by and allow violations of human rights when they have the power to act.

Its a hybrid of idealism and realism; idealistic in its priorities, but realistic, and at times opportunist, in its approach. The ultimate goal is one of guaranteeing and maintaining human rights and democracy, regardless of whether or not doing so is directly and immediately beneficial to the aiding party, if at all. What could be more ideal, more Spiderman and Superman-esque, than to ensure justice and basic rights for the world?

Iggy acts on this idealism in an surprisingly pragmatic and almost scientific manner; the 'lesser evil' reasoning method. The idea behind lesser evil is simple, and easy to understand: when you can't be everywhere at once to offer help, you go where your assistance will be the most beneficial. The idea is entirely Batman; you do what you can, as best as you can, always. And what is Batman, but an Iggy with a wicked car, spandex suit (complete with cape), nifty gadgets and gravely voice? Both are regular people who have a firm belief that maintaining ethical standards for all is of paramount importance, but recognize the shortcomings of being a non-biochemically-altered human, or alien, and that that there is only so much they can do. In response, they decide where their efforts would be best put to use, and act. Iggy can also recognize an opportunity to exercise his Batman muscle in almost any situation. "If good results had to wait for good intentions, we would have to wait forever." This idea is illustrated perfectly by his 'the ends justify the means' defense of the Iraq war; while you don't have to agree with the reasoning behind a war, you can get on board with the war because of the improved humanitarian aid a victory would bring. Another similarity between Bats and Iggy is their near-scientific reasoning behind ideals like democracy; that one of the chief reasons to support endeavors that bring it to areas in the world where it is not present is simply because the entire world running under the same basic system saves time, and leaves considerably fewer means through which conflict can arise.

Sadly, we don't live in a world where Spiderman or Superman can swoop in from above and save the day, solve the world's economy, feed a starving third world village, and, of course, have time to rescue a kitten stuck in a tree, without ever having to bat an eyelash, or consider their actions beyond 'Does this ensure that someone's basic rights are being returned to them?" Nor do we have a Batman running around as a ninja millionaire doing the same thing, save in considerably cooler transportation and with a darker sense of humor. But we do have as close to Batman, and thereby Superman and Spiderman, as we ever are going to get, in the form of Iggy and other liberal interventionists. People who recognize that when you can act in the defense and betterment of others, wether or not it benefits you, you do it.

The world could use a few more people with this outlook.

Obamablogg

Barack Obama is many things. A Harvard Law School graduate, Grammy winning artist, First African-American President of the United States, and, by extension, feasibly the most powerful individual in the world.

Courtesy of Wikipedia

One thing about politics, no matter their when or where, is you can't have the term 'powerful' without a Machiavellian Seal of Approval. Or, so Machiavelli would have the world believe. Obama is clearly an individual in a position of power, and if Machiavelli's take on politics is to be accepted, then Obama has him to thank for this. To put Machiavelli to the test, Obama's speech to the cadets at West Point, delivered in December 2009, on the subject of sending 30 000 troops into Afghanistan, will be analyzed for Machiavellian aspects.

On the popularity of a Prince, Machiavelli makes it clear that the goal is to avoid hatred; you can be disliked, but you will be hated for things such as cowardice, and robbing the people. In his speech, Obama's occasionally brusque language shows his lack of cowardice for the harsh realities of the mission, with such excerpts as "High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed," "Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda," "to isolate those who destroy," and "deny al Qaeda a safe-haven." His most powerful statement "And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are." not only demonstrated to his audience present at the time his confidence in the mission, but served as a challenge to any who would oppose the mission. Obama talked the proverbial talk when he repeatedly promised to "step up the pressure on al Qaeda," and, with his direct challenge to any who would defy him, proved he can also walk the walk.

A key element of Machiavellian politics is the ability to please the people you govern, and in his speech, Obama addressed enough basic concerns and questions about the troop surge to cover all his bases, and prove its necessity to the American people. To those who oppose the war, and want the troops to return home yesterday, Obama explained that the troops would remain in Afghanistan for a small, but necessary, amount of time. His reasoning played to the desire to stop the war; if the troops leave immediately, it leaves Afghanistan susceptible to the Taliban, which will undoubtedly result in more attacks against the United States. The way to prevent such things is by reinforcing the troops' mission, before bringing them home safely; which is his ultimate goal, as proven by phrases such as "I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force," "to hasten the day when our troops will leave," "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict," and "If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow." For the idealists who believe the troops should remain in Afghanistan for the betterment of Afghanistan, Obama assures that the mission aims to "strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future." Any concerns that America's goal is to remain in Afghanistan and constantly control the country are quelled with statements such as "we have no interest in occupying your country," "America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan," and "we will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's Security Forces [...] it will be clear tot he Afghan government - and, more importantly, to the Afghan people - that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country." With this, Obama has shown his prowess in keeping the masses satisfied, a basic skill of any Machiavellian leader.

Obama also meets another Machiavellian standard in how he addressed the financial aspects of the troop surge. According to Machiavelli, it is better to be known for your miser-ness than your overspending, which Obama addresses: "We simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars," which he acknowledges are not cheap. But, he argues, the mission in Afghanistan, at roughly thirty billion dollars, while under his guidance, is going to be considerably less expensive than the previous mission in Iraq, where the cost was close to three trillion dollars.

No one can deny that Barack Obama is a powerful man. Very few will say that Machiavellian politics aren't universally applicable. After putting them to the test of, arguably, the current most powerful individual in the world, and finding that the two share much common ground, the facts are clear: Obama, like many before, and many more after him, is yet another world leader who owes Machiavelli his thanks.

All Obama quotes from a transcript of his speech at West Point.

Machi

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469 – 1527): an Italian philosopher (and, for all intents and purposes, the father of political realism), is often referred to as one of the most important figures in politics today, regardless of the fact he died circa. 480 years ago.

Courtesy of Wikipedia

His work, "The Prince", written for his boss and ruler of Florence, Lorenzo de' Medici, was a how-to guide for running a country. What makes Machiavelli's guide unique, compared to others of its kind (no matter when they were written) is its worldwide application. Today, almost 500 years after his death, politicians will still turn to "The Prince" for the basics. "The Prince" takes a realistic view on politics: the goal of the game is to get ahead, and stay there. Decisions are made with power acquisition in mind, and the civilian masses are treated like metaphorical sheep to the leader's shepherd; a large, single and simple-minded group that needs to feel, rather than genuinely be, satisfied, and are content to be lead around, so long as all is well in their collective, and rather dim-witted, mind.

One politician whose been taking a leaf out of Machiavelli's book in recent times, is Canada's very own Stephen Harper.

Courtesy of Wikipedia

At the heart of Machiavelli's teachings is a golden rule: act like you care, but only really care if it brings you power and/or money.

Since his election in 2006, Harper's been a diligent student in Machiavelli's Country-Running School; making and keeping simple campaign promises to earn voter's trust, and giving off a tougher image, thereby making acts of grace that much more appealing, due to their rarity.

One of Harper's most recent political moves was his announcement on this year's up-coming G8 Summit in November 2010, hosted in Canada, where he said the focus would be on improving women's, maternal, and infantile health in developing countries. The problem is relatively cheap and easy to fix, according to experts, and simply needs some one to take notice and make a conscious and continuous effort to solve it. Some effort has been put to the task in the past, but Harper seems adamant that in the coming years things will change, for the better.

While promising humanitarian aid works well for satisfying the sheep's wants, it conflicts with the Machiavellian School's priorities of self-serving advancement. Why would Harper, such a diligent student, be focusing on women's health in developing countries, when statistics show there are basic problems with maternal health in G8 countries? It certainly garnered a lot of attention, much like another recent humanitarian aid decision to send huge amounts of aid into Haiti, post-earthquake; and shares the humanitarian aid theme with Harper's decision to withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan come 2011, but to continue helping with development. These three, seemingly anti-Machiavellian decisions, revolve around helping others, with no immediate gain for Harper or Canada.

The operative word in that last sentence was 'immediate'. In his April Throne Speech, Harper outlined five priorities for his government:

1. Strengthening Canada's sovereignty in the world;
2. Forging a stronger federation;
3. Providing economic leadership;
4. Tackling crime;
5. Improving the environment.

Harper has already demonstrated that Canada, under his guidance, can act quickly and effectively in matters of humanitarian aid, as shown with the almost immediate response to the Haitian earthquake. If Harper can pull of a humanitarian hat trick, and succeeds in making the most of the aid being poured into Haiti, and bringing change to the situation of maternal health in developing countries, as well as Afghanistan, post-2011, then Canada will be one of the world's foremost international aid-supplying countries; a status that fits nicely with the goal of showing the world just how sovereign and important Canada is. And a sovereign country, with a reputation of success in its endeavors, leads to a powerful country, with satisfied and proudly patriotic sheep, and a passing grade from the Machiavellian Country-Running School.