As I mentioned before, these questions are loaded with your own bias. You are trying to find out what your reader's opinions are regarding Canadian and US Foreign Policies, not what your reader's opinions are regarding left-wing interpretations of Canadian and US Foreign Policy.
In an attempt to maintain the notion of objectivity, academic surveys and questionnaires should attempt to be as free as possible from language that includes insinuations and pejorative statements (I can see multiple examples in your questionnaire). By doing this you may be accused of attempting to lead your subjects to their answer or to present a one-sided argument to get the answer you want to hear. As well, you choice of tone and language implies that you have an axe to grind - why don't you leave that to the daily rag reporters.
In essence, everyone is aloud to have a bias (hell, all of you can read what mine is) but when collecting data and facts in an academic setting, it is important to gather it in a "neutral" manner, less your own bias be seen to have interfered with the data collection process.
Now for your questions:
MissMolsonIndy said:
6. 49 former US Generals told President Bush that missile defense is a waste of funds, and urged Canada not to join. What is your position on this issue?
How about US Generals that support the development of the system? What exactly were the generals arguing against - specific system technology or the concept in general? Do the generals have an axe to grind (for example, their department lost funds to the BMD system)?
You're "headlining" here, just like a newspaper. Your asking us a question without supplying any qualitative substance for us to base our position on.
7. In your opinion, will democracy have a chance to establish itself (temporarily or permanently) in Iraq?
That one is a crapshoot. There are so many different interests colliding in Iraq - American's pursuing the GWOT, Al Qaeda operations, Shia fundamentalism (supported from Iran), left over Ba'ath party rebels (all those Republican Guard divisions had to go somewhere), Sunni's who fear a Shi'a takeover, Kurds who hate both parties. When you got a situation that is that complex, you have to take things one day at a time.
8. With the expected launch of Missile Defense towards the end of 2004, the United States is looking to spend approximately one trillion US dollars (for the entire campaign) to build this system. Critics argue that the money should be spent on diminshing the roots of conflict and terrorism (inequality, poverty, underdevelopment...) instead. Do you agree or disagree? And what are the reasons to support your claim?
If we want to base the debate on economic issues we can. Brad Sallows summed up my outlook on the economics of the issue best in another thread:
I estimate that on one city block where I live, there are approximately 25 single detached residences. In a grid square, I estimate there could be as many as 1800 residences. Assuming the replacement cost of each to be $100K, including reconstruction, refurnishment, landscaping, replacement of vehicles, refurbishment of utilities, etc, that amounts to about $180M. Now be conservative and cut the estimate by nearly one-half to a nice, round, $100M to replace one grid square blown away by a nuclear warhead. A 3km radius of devastation? Maybe $700M. 5km? Maybe $2B. Keep in mind my estimates should be on the low side. I can't begin to estimate the cost of replacing densely populated high-rise residential or commercial property. There are also, not incidentally, the lives.
Of course, there are the economic costs: what happens if in the aftermath of a detonation cargo stops moving out of the Port of Vancouver (check out the daily cost of a longshoreman's strike) and most of the surviving population decides to take an extended vacation with relatives east of the Rockies? That could happen even if a near miss occurs and the worst that happens is that the "Lions" are slightly resculpted.
Likelihood of occurrence: very small. Impact: very large. Worth at least a little more commitment to research into preventive measures against missiles as well as sea containers? You decide.
9. If the proposed Missile Defense passes, with active Canadian participation included, do you agree or disagree with the likelihood of this defense system creating an atmosphere where more conflict and more terrorist activity emerges, due to the fact that states (particularly those who do not participate in the "global defense system") feel more vulnerable?
If you look at the proposal for the BMD, it is built to deter attacks from "Rogue Nations". A problem with this is that there is the chance that the outcome can lead to other states in believing that their nuclear deterrence has fallen below acceptable levels, leading to increases their arsenal to offset US invulnerability. Consider that this argument is geared towards China and Russian, who both already possess a preponderant amount of nuclear warheads from all three points of the triad (SLBM, ICBM, Air-Delivered) I don't see where the
increased level of danger is going to come from; the situation already has the potential to be catastrophic.
I am unsure of how this breeds terrorism and conflict though.
10. The United Nations Committee suggests that a mere 8-10% (approximately $80 Billion US dollars) of international military spending per year will meet the basic needs of every citizen on earth (clothing, food, shelter, water, and education). If these are some of the very problems that contribute to terrorist activity, why have appropriate actions not been taken in the efficiency of the "global war on terrorism"?
Kind of hard to give people clothing, food, shelter, water and education when a militia comes rolling through and cuts the noses off of those who accepted aid from Imperialists. Kind of hard to distribute aid when most of the aid money is siphoned off by tin-pot dictators (how else does Arafat squirrel away billions of dollars?).
Stability and security are the key elements to an environment that is conducive to productivity. Otherwise, why wouldn't these people have got clothing, shelter, and education on their own? Cutting military spending in return for "I Love Canada" tee-shirts to give to Palestinian kids isn't going to do much for rectifying the problem.
11. With recent statistics showing that 70% of Canadians show no desire to join onto the Missile Defense Program for North America, does Canada's participation in the Missile Defense Program look promising in the future years?
70% of Canadians also identified Lester Pearson as Canada's leader in WWII.
1) Statistics are shaky, just ask Steven Harper about his job as the Prime Minister. For every statistic that came out supporting the war in Iraq, there was one that came out opposing it.
2) You're assuming that the general populace of Canada is familiar with the details of BMD policies and strategies. Considering more Canadians pay attention to the latest gay couple on "Will and Grace" or who's offering what in the NHL lock-out, I wouldn't be too confident on basing policy decisions on the fickle nature of the mob.
12. The United States organized an invasion in Iraq on the basis that the Iraqi government was developing and concealing "weapons of mass destruction". "Saddam Hussein's quest to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has been systematic and relentless," reports the US Department of State. With the United States harbouring the largest military on the globe, and weapons of mass destruction in greater numberm, strength and capability than any other state, could it be argued on the same line of reasoning that the United States is also a "threat to the peace and security of the world"? (US Department of State) In answering this question, it is necessary to look at it from the point-of-view of the "West", as well as the "Peripheral Countries" (less developed, economically and politcally dependent on the West etc...)
This one is silly. You are trying to draw direct comparisons to the arsenal of the United States to the one that Iraq had possessed (and used). If you think that the US is irresponsible with its Nuclear Weapons policy, then I implore you to point out to me where their transgressions lie. Although there are strategic dilemmas with the US arsenal (with high-readiness, Launch-On-Demand silos being the most obvious), I think we can give the US enough credit to move them out of the "threat to the peace and security of the world" camp.
13. As a permanent member of the United Nations, do you believe that the United States is subject to and moreover bound by the conditions and negotiations of the international governing body? Why, or why not? Has the United States breached international law?
I am not sure on what you mean with the US being a permanent member of the United Nations; the US is not bound in any way to remain in the UN in perpetuity - adherence to the UN Charter is the legislation of the individual states that compose it, and that legislation could be reversed as easy as any other law. Perhaps you meant permanent member of the United Nations Security Council?
I think that the legitimacy of the UN has been challenged to such an extent that it's legitimacy as the
aegis of international law has been sufficiently diminished. The structure of the UN worked fine during the Cold War (a geopolitical arrangement that it was designed to facilitate) but I think it becomes less and less relevent every year. Why should the United States hold itself to the proclamations of an organization that puts it on the same level as the Sudan; that puts Iraq (under Saddam) in charge of the council on disarmament and Libya in charge of the council on human rights; or one that gives France a veto is world security issues but discards countries like Germany, Japan, and India. Quite farcical if you ask me.
14. The Vietnam War was launched on "government lies passed on by pliant mass media," where "North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 -- and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later." The Gulf War, was sold to the United States, "the mother of all clients," by a "it bleeds, it leads" story about babies being tossed out of incubators by Iraqi soldiers. As officials and the mass media learned of the witness's blood ties with the Kuwaiti government, the story began to fall apart, and the war was launched on false information/propaganda. The Iraq War was launched by the United States of America on the basis that Iraq was developing and concealing weapons of mass destruction, with no evidence that these weapons of mass destruction even exist, is it viable that government lies and deception have once again "sold a war" to the media and public?
This one stinks so bad I can smell it in the office. The Vietnam War was started on the "lie" of the Gulf of Tonkin? Please, the American's were involved (as per the policy of Containment) in Vietnam long before the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Do you think that the US public supported the Vietnam War based on the pretext of the Gulf of Tonkin? How many recruiters did you see marching down the street saying "Avenge the
Maddox!". Same with GW1 (Iraqi baby killers) and GW2 (WMD).
You seem to be painting the notion of the
casus belli being a monolithic, all-or-nothing issue. If you bothered to look into the beginning of these conflicts, you would see that their are many more valid issues (as opposed to Chomsky-esque "government lies and deception") that different segments of society accept as valid reasons for war. Anyone who takes press sensationalism as the justification for war is stupid (which, unfortunately, is more then we'd like to admit) and anyone who feels that the the government (and the society it represents) finds its sole
casus belli in inflated, but relatively insignificant, news-clippings needs to up the Ritalin dosage and take a second look at the big picture.
----
As I said above, cut-out the rhetoric and the innuendo and the questions are pretty good.
