Suchergebnisse

Since coming into office in 2006, the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has rejected many of the symbols and practices of the liberal internationalist approach to foreign affairs that Canadian governments of all political stripes broadly embraced during the preceding six decades. As part of this change, the Harper government has also promoted a new narrative about Canada's history and foreign policy, which encourages Canadians to change how they think about their country and its role in the world. By examining recent opinion surveys, this article asks whether Canadian public attitudes on foreign policy have shifted away from liberal internationalism and toward the Harper government's narrative since 2006.

The US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, which deposed the Taliban regime, was followed by a major international effort to stabilize that country. More than a decade later, this effort has yielded neither security nor political stability in Afghanistan. After having been ousted from power, the Taliban reestablished itself in the borderlands of Pakistan and began fighting an effective guerrilla war against international and Afghan government forces. Despite heavy losses in recent years, the insurgency shows no sign of giving up. Meanwhile, attempts to establish a credible and legitimate Afghan government have been similarly disappointing. President Hamid Karzai, once hailed as the country's democratic savior, came to be seen instead as the leader of one of the most corrupt regimes on the planet, a perception that has damaged his government's legitimacy both at home and abroad. Afghanistan's development and human rights indicators have improved, but it remains to be seen if these gains can be sustained as the international effort is scaled back. Finally, although the United States and its partners succeeded in weakening Al Qaeda in the region, both Afghanistan and nuclear-armed Pakistan appear to have become considerably less stable over the course of the mission, with untold consequences for the future.

El presente fragmento introduce los argumentos de Roland Paris acerca de la construcción de las paz postbélica. Paris critica la metodología empleada durante los noventa por las misiones de construcción de la paz que trataron de implementar reformas democráticas y liberales demasiado rápido. Aunque Paris sostiene que la meta principal todavía debe ser convertir países destrozados por la guerra en sistemas democráticos de mercado, mantiene que la introducción de tales reformas sin suficientes instituciones gubernamentales puede provocar la recaída de estos países en el conflicto. Por lo tanto, propone una nueva estrategia de "institucionalización antes que de liberalización", que implica la construcción inicial de una base institucional para luego permitir la introducción de reformas democráticas y liberales que fomenten una paz duradera.

This fragment introduces Roland Paris's argument regarding post-conflict peace building. Paris criticises methods used during the nineties by peace building operations for trying to implement democratic reforms and liberalisation too quickly. Whilst Paris maintains that the principal objective still should be to convert war torn countries into market democracies he believes that the implementation of such reforms without sufficient government institutions can provoke the regression of these countries into conflict. Therefore, he proposes a new strategy "institutionalisation before liberalisation" that first builds a strong institutional base, which he argues may then allow the introduction of democratic and liberal reforms capable of creating a lasting peace. ; El presente fragmento introduce los argumentos de Roland Paris acerca de la construcción de las paz postbélica. Paris critica la metodología empleada durante los noventa por las misiones de construcción de la paz que trataron de implementar reformas democráticas y liberales demasiado rápido. Aunque Paris sostiene que la meta principal todavía debe ser convertir países destrozados por la guerra en sistemas democráticos de mercado, mantiene que la introducción de tales reformas sin suficientes instituciones gubernamentales puede provocar la recaída de estos países en el conflicto. Por lo tanto, propone una nueva estrategia de "institucionalización antes que de liberalización", que implica la construcción inicial de una base institucional para luego permitir la introducción de reformas democráticas y liberales que fomenten una paz duradera.

AbstractLiberal peacebuilding has become the target of considerable criticism. Although much of this criticism is warranted, a number of scholars and commentators have come to the opinion that liberal peacebuilding is either fundamentally destructive, or illegitimate, or both. On close analysis, however, many of these critiques appear to be exaggerated or misdirected. At a time when the future of peacebuilding is uncertain, it is important to distinguish between justified and unjustified criticisms, and to promote a more balanced debate on the meaning, shortcomings and prospects of liberal peacebuilding.