Wednesday, 6 January 2016

Multilateralism and the Terrorism Deniers

2016 started the same way as 2015 ended. There were terrorist attacks or warnings of attacks by terrorists in many parts of the world. As the final year of Obama’s presidency draws closer, the terrorism deniers will have their work cut out, but they will try to undo as many sovereignty rights as possible through multilateralism, , and there is no doubt that the year will bring more chaos, terror and deaths.

While many attacks are not reported because they happen in remote parts of the world or in smaller cities, they nevertheless occur. In the industrialized world we only make reference or report on incidents which directly affect us. In 2015 there were approximately 383 attacks conducted either by large groups or so-called lone wolves, all resulting in death and massive number of injuries.
The major attacks started in Paris on Charlie Hebdo, the satirical news magazine causing 12 deaths, which was quickly followed by the Porte de Vincennes hostage taking killing 4 people.
In July a so called lone wolf attacked a recruitment center in Chattanooga killing 5 servicemen. In November 2015 a coordinated attack in Paris killed 130 in a restaurant and at a concert at the Bataclan Theatre in Paris. In December in San Bernardino California, a married couple attacked and killed 14 people at a county health department's holiday banquet. Let us not forget the airplane bombing of Russian tourists in Egypt as well as the killing of tourists in Tunisia.
The above terrorism attacks were reported widely because they were in the western world or affected western victims; however the remaining hundreds of attacks were conducted in the developing world and the Middle East. Therefore for those who would refuse to acknowledge that there is a global war on terror, a simple analysis will show that the world as a whole is not immune from terrorism.
The question is why do we still have terrorism deniers among many world leaders? In my opinion the answer lies in a growing trend in multilateralism. This change occurred when Obama was elected and then without any accomplishments he was given the Nobel Peace Prize, because European countries felt that with him they would have a greater say in world affairs. Obama has been an apologist and appeaser, because he believes that the world will be better off without any super power, including his country the United States. Obama strongly believes that leadership should be placed in the hands of the United Nations. Obama, for the next 12 months will have a strong ally in Justin Trudeau, whose father believed in the concept, and is being advised by Prof. Roland Paris who “believes that Canada does have a role to play in promoting multilateralism, punching above our weight but also being mindful that there are finite resources.”
The problem with multilateralism, is that like Obama it requires leadership from behind and approval from many countries. It also results in a loss of sovereignty since many important issues may be left to a group or organization like the United Nations. In recent past the U.N, increasingly becoming anti-Semite, has been anything but effective at dealing with world conflicts. From a Canadian point of view, many future decisions will be affected by Trudeau’s willingness to be part of a world where some decisions will be dictated by constant deliberations among countries with huge conflict of interest. Many international organizations, in both the foreign affairs and sporting arena, have suffered from the increasing number of decisions made by corrupt officials. Many developing countries’ representatives are often open to bribery and in that case multilateralism becomes moot because the decisions are usually tainted at the onset.
The consequences of allowing decisions being made at the multi-national level through the U.N, because of the threat of vetoes by Russia and China, always end up in compromise which creates more chaos than solutions. Recent examples of failed decisions are the Iran nuclear deal, and now the North Korean H-Bomb. The use of political correctness language in multilateralism also prevents the identification of terrorism for what it is. The use of ‘so-called’ to identify terror groups like ISIL or ISIS, prevents the real identification of the root cause of terrorism. Terrorism deniers refuse to identify the threat as Islamic Jihadists. They ignore that the ‘I’ stands for Islam. Let me make it quite clear we are not fighting a religion but the war is about an ideology.  Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists, in this war, embrace the Islamic faith
Making a stand against terrorism does not require multilateralism, it requires leadership, a character that Justin Trudeau lacks and will display for the next 12 months as he follows Obama’s foreign policy blindly. Even after Obama’s departure Trudeau will defer many decisions to the United Nations, and Canada would have lost its sovereignty on many important issues.
If this is what Trudeau arrogantly meant when he said: ‘Canada is back’ we are in for a long four years.