Genocide prevention in Canada's interest, report says (Civilian Led Prevention Corps?)

Genocide prevention in Canada's interest, report says (Civilian Led Prevention Corps?)

ca.news.yahoo.com

Canada's national security depends on intervening to prevent mass atrocities and should be a national priority, according to a new report.

"If we continue to deal with looming genocides and other mass atrocities in a reactive manner, we will confront more than just the moral failure to save lives," the authors write, adding, "inevitably, Canada and the U.S. will face threats to their own national security and prosperity."

Along with beefing up the Canadian Forces, it suggests creating a civilian-led Canadian Prevention Corps to work with special envoys on preventative diplomacy and

(visit the link for the full news article)

Errhm. . . Wait, what? A civilian led Canadian prevention corps? That seems to be a bit American-esque, doesn't it? Seems to me we're becoming more and more like America as we stray from our original essence in staying out of conflicts and other peoples business. "The True North Strong and Free" is becoming more and more like "Home of the Free" if you ask me.

ca.news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 22-9-2009 by born2BWild]

Reply to post by born2BWild

Um no. They are talking measures up to and including pre-empitive war.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I didn't get that drift from the article. Considering that one source is Romeo Dallaire, whose bona fides regarding genocide prevention make him worth listening to, it seems that what is alluded to makes sense.

The article itself, unfortunately, is not well written so it's not clear exactly what it meant, but it seems that the were suggesting that non-military intervention might be more effective at genocide prevention than using force. The civilian force, I gather, refers to diplomatic and economic government and non-government institutions.

... creating a civilian-led Canadian Prevention Corps to work with special envoys on preventative diplomacy and fact-finding missions.

Frank Chalk, a history professor at Concordia, an expert on genocide and a co-director of the project, said Canada could have brought pressure on the Rwandan government, from freezing bank accounts to expelling Rwandan students often the children of officials who would later fan the genocide from Canadian universities.

These sorts of soft power reactions should be the first resort in future crises, the report said. But if diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions don't work, countries must be prepared to use force.

The other point that was worth noting as a good argument for this was

For example, mass atrocities often precipitate the spread of communicable diseases. Those fleeing such conflicts could be carriers of such diseases and could end up in Canada.

"If we continue to deal with looming genocides and other mass atrocities in a reactive manner, we will confront more than just the moral failure to save lives," the authors write, adding, "inevitably, Canada and the U.S. will face threats to their own national security and prosperity."

What a creepy article. I wonder if he's actually referring to the coming genocide by H1N1 vaccine?