The first problem we can solve a lot easier than the second. If any of our free citizens want to help the struggle of repressed Syrians they are free to go according to the dictates of their conscience. It might even make a good novel or two as evidenced by Hemingway and Orwell's escapades. The second can be somewhat alleviated in the same manner.
The question is why does the government push to remedy one situation and not the other? Is there an agenda in play not apparent to us? Surely, as Canadians, we want to be known as a nation of compassionate people instead of invaders, or policemen.
At one time it used to be an asset to be a Canadian on the world scene, not a liability.
1 comment:
My view is that our Government should not interfere in either crisis.
In Syria, because as bad as the government there may be, it is still the de facto government. Who decides when the number of protesters or rebels being shot to maintain law and order has risen to the level where foreign intervention is required?
Why should we as outsiders, automatically assume that protesters either occupy the moral highground or represent the majority in Syria or any where else?
We might not approve of their methods, but until and unless the Syrian forces start killing people outside the country, it is arrogant in the extreme for the West to interfere.
Over $1 trillion in aid has reputedly been given to sub Saharan Africa in the last 30 years, despite that or may be because of it, there are now more starving people in the horn of Africa than there.
It appears that much of that aid has been used to finance continuing power struggles and not help the starving.
Droughts are part of the natural cycle in Africa. Artificially providing for populations too large to be supported by the resources of the country concerned, may save lives in the short term, but then condemn millions to perpetual poverty and malnutrition.
Again, we should not interfere in the domestic policies (or lack thereof) of these countries.
Post a Comment