 |
|
CDFAI
DISPATCH: WINTER 2008 (VOLUME VI, ISSUE IV)
|
|
Promoting new understanding and improvement of Canadian foreign and
defence policy.
Canadian
Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute
Phone: (613) 288-2529
Fax: (613) 288-2530
E-mail:
subscribe@cdfai.org
|
 |
|
|
|
Message
from the President - ROBERT S. MILLAR
|
|
Welcome to the Winter 2008 issue of “The Dispatch.” The first thing
you might notice about this edition is that it is in an entirely new
format. The format will continue to evolve over the coming months and
we encourage you to let us know what you think of it. In this edition
of “The Dispatch,” there are two feature articles. The first examines
the changing humanitarian space and asserts that it is the Canadian
government’s responsibility to protect its citizens abroad. The second
discusses how the Canada-U.S. relationship can be managed under a new
American administration. The other six articles cover an array of
topics from relations with China to the legal processes at Guantanamo.
I encourage you to read each of them. I hope you enjoy this issue!
Article Summaries from the Assistant Editor
-
Canadian Humanitarian
Worker Security: Whose Responsibility is it?
– Gordon Smith,
Allen Kanerva, and Frans Barnard. Humanitarian agencies often find
themselves in a space increasingly shared with militaries pursuing
development operations. Gordon, Allen, and Frans state that this has
put workers in more danger and note that there has been a sharp
increase in the incidence of violence against humanitarian workers.
The question, then, is who is responsible for the safety of these
people who risk so much to help others? The authors argue that, as
part of its commitment to human security and international
development, the Canadian government must ensure that appropriate
security measures are taken to protect Canadian workers and ensure
that these people are properly trained in order to lower their risk
levels.
-
Managing the Canada-U.S.
Relationship in the Obama Era – Denis Stairs. Canadians, for the
most part, share in the international enthusiasm for the Obama-Biden
foreign policy plan as it is more moderate and international in
focus and may also produce new initiatives in the Canada-U.S.
relationship. This, contends Denis, is not because the new
administration will look more favourably on Canadian concerns, but
because Canadians are more agreeable to working closely with the new
administration. This new opportunity that political leaders will
have to renegotiate the bilateral relationship, must fall within the
traditional rules of constructive Canada-U.S. statecraft.
-
The GWOT + 7 – Brian
Flemming. The Global War on Terror (GWOT) has spanned seven years,
but those countries still fighting the GWOT are now suffering from
“crisis fatigue,” and unless another incident occurs, security
measures are less likely to be funded. Brian argues that diminished
funding of security measures, combined with the financial crisis, is
a good thing because it will force national security institutions to
do a serious cost-benefit analysis and will allow the Canadian
government to develop a “resilient” approach to future extremist
attacks. He also contends that the Canadian public should be
involved in deciding on the security measures the government funds.
-
It’s Time for a Defence
Industrial Strategy – Sharon Hobson. What Canada has is a
defence policy and plans to increase the defence budget for the next
twenty years. What Canada does not have is a Defence Industrial
Strategy, akin to those in the UK and Australia. Sharon argues that
because DND will be acquiring billions of dollars in the next twenty
years, and because there have already been procurement missteps, the
need for this strategy is greater than it has ever been. The
government, she states, must stop operating on the basis of ad hoc
policies and create a defence industrial strategy that will help to
build both the Canadian military and economy.
-
Guantanamo – Frank
Harvey. In April 2008, Frank attended Salim Ahmed Hamdan’s open
militarycommission hearings in Guantanamo as an academic observer.
He states that the image the media portrays of legal processes
violated by an administration bent on imposing its will is simply
not true. Mr. Hamdan’s legal team, and the teams of other detainees,
are experts, have long years of experience, are relentless in the
defence of their clients, and have a huge success rate. With this in
mind, Frank questions whether it would be in Omar Khadr’s best
interests to be tried in Canada, how Canada would deal with such a
trial, and whose interests are really being served by brining him
back to Canada. He also posits on the future of Guantanamo.
-
Risks, Disasters and
Crises: A Better Comprehension of the Stakes in Civil Protection
– DanyDeschênes. In this article, Dany examines the differences and
connections between risk, disaster, and crisis. He states that risk
is a critical factor today because our society has become
characterized by risk and because a risk to one sector of our
society can become a risk to multiple sectors. Dany also argues that
we need to stop solely associating risk with terrorism and that
Canada must improve its collaboration between all levels of
government in order to effectively deal with risk, disaster, and
crisis.
-
Charm and Repression
– Ralph Sawyer. China, Ralph contends, is a master of deception and
is playing the international community right into its hands. Chinese
officials have launched a multipronged effort to achieve their
perceived new world order – a world in which the United States and
Europe have ossified and in which China has taken back its rightful
place as the major world power. Ralph argues that the reluctance of
people in the United States, and in other countries, to publically
criticize China is creating a concensus it desires. That, combined
with China’s strategy of alienating the world, and especially
resource rich countries, from the United States, is giving China an
edge in the battle for scarce natural resources and political space.
-
Measuring the
Comprehensive Approach to Peace Operations – Sarah Meharg. Since
2005, measuring the effectiveness of peace operations has been a
high priority for the international community. In that same year,
the Canadian Forces Joint Operations Group asked Sarah to develop a
way to measure the effectiveness of Canadian PRT activities in
Afghanistan. In this article Sarah reveals the two main results her
research yielded and argues that measuring the effectivness of peace
operations is directly linked to the international community’s
success in these operations. It could lead, she states, to a common
strategy that would ensure the underlying causes of conflict are
properly addressed.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
Message
from the Editor-in-Chief - david bercuson
|
|
David Bercuson is the Director of
Programs at CDFAI, the Director of the Centre for Military and
Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, and the Honorary
Lieutenant Colonel of the 41 Combat Engineer Regiment.
The attacks on Mumbai in the last week of November should wake up
Prime Minister Stephen Harper about the real stakes in Afghanistan. As
of this writing (November 30), no one is yet sure which “movement”
perpetrated the raid, but one thing is certain: the raiders sole
purpose was to kill as many innocents as possible. There can be no
question either that they did not finance, plan, or train themselves
for the strike. But it does not matter too much whether they
were Islamic terrorists from inside India (the so-called India or
Deccan Mujahadin), Pakistan–either from Kashmir, the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas or any other trouble spots in that area–or
even Afghanistan. It is clear today that all are linked and all are
part of one larger murderous collection of jihadis who are engaged in
total war against everyone who is not them.
Without question the best book on the subject is Descent into
Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in
Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia. Written by Pakistani
journalist Ahmed Rashid, the book is NOT an anti-American rant. It is
instead a careful exposition of how intertwined the jihadi movement is
across a large swath of central Asia and how poorly the Bush
administration (and others) understood this when committing to a
military operation in Afghanistan. It also points to how it might have
been carried out with greater success.
Put bluntly, the same enemy that attacked Mumbai is attacking our
troops in Afghanistan – it is the same religious fanaticism, the same
world view, often the same people from Chechnya, Zinzjang, Pakistan,
Indonesia, the Philippines, and Bosnia, funded by the same sources of
cash and with the same aim. Pakistan may be “jihadi central,” as
Rashid explains, but the tentacles reach out for a thousand kilometers
in any direction.
Rashid demonstrates that the key to winning the war against these
jihadis is ultimately to be found in Pakistan. A Pakistan resolved to
rooting out the terrorism in its midst, whether by undermining the
basis of jihadism in schools, mosques, etc., or by force, or by any
combination of such, is the ultimate answer. But if India, Afghanistan
and even China hold the line around Pakistan, jihadism will be
geographically limited and pressure will grow on Pakistan to deal with
it.
In Kandahar province, Canada holds only one tiny piece of this very
large puzzle. But it is a keypiece and abandoning Kandahar, in
particular, or giving up in Afghanistan in general, will prolong this
struggle that much more.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
announcements
|
|
Dinner with Derek Burney
On 8 October, CDFAI hosted a dinner in Calgary at which Derek Burney
shared his views on the Canada-U.S. relationship in a talk entitled,
“The Audacity of Common Sense.” This event was held on the eve of a
Canada-U.S. relations workshop hosted by Carleton University, in
partnership with CDFAI, the Alberta government, and other
contributors. Derek Burney is a Senior Fellow with CDFAI, a Senior
Strategic Advisor to Ogilvy Renault LLP, and a former Canadian
Ambassador to the United States.
Ross Munro Media Award
Congratulations to Mr. Alec Castonguay, who was chosen as the 2008
Ross Munro media award recipient in recognition of his excellent
reporting on Canadian military and defence issues! Mr. Castonguay
received his award at the CDA Institute’s Vimy Dinner on Friday, 14
November, in the LeBreton Gallery of the Canadian War Museum in
Ottawa.
Luncheon with Brian Flemming
U.S.
administration.Brian Flemming
spoke about Canada-U.S. relations in the Arctic in Calgary on 10
November. His was the first presentation in our newly formatted
speaker series and a more in depth version of his talk will be
published by CDFAI in December as Canada-U.S. Relations in the
Arctic: A Neighbourly Proposal.
Upcoming Publications
Before year end CDFAI will publish two quarterly
research papers that you may find of interest. In his paper,
President Al Gore and the 2003 Iraq War: A Counterfactual Critique of
Conventional “W”isdom, Frank Harvey argues that the
“Bush-neocon-war” thesis is an unsubstantiated assertion and that the
United States would have gone to war with Iraq even if Al Gore had
become president. In his upcoming paper, Canada-U.S. Relations in
the Arctic: A Neighbourly Proposal, Brian Flemming states that it
is time for Canada and the United States to put aside their legal
claims over the North West Passage and create a bilateral North West
Passage Authority that will allow them to control this vital Water
Route.
Canada-U.S. Relations Workshop
On 9 October the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and
the Centre for Trade Policy and Law at Carleton University, in
cooperation with CDFAI, hosted an Author’s Workshop entitled,
“Blueprint for Canada-U.S. Engagement under a New Administration,” at
the McDougall Conference Centre, Calgary. This event sought to provide
political leadership with new ideas on creating a positive
relationship with the incoming U.S. administration.
CDFAI would like to wish
everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
Annual Conference
|
|
This year’s conference, “Canada & the United States: What Does it Mean
to be Good Neighbours,” was held on 27 October at the Crowne Plaza
Hotel in Ottawa. Just over 200 people attended and listened to
excellent presentations, on a variety of issues within Canada-U.S.
relations from high calibre panelists, as well as our two keynote
speakers: Michael Kergin, former Canadian Ambassador to the United
States; and Paul Cellucci, former American Ambassador to Canada. CDFAI
is very grateful to our sponsors for their generous support that made
the conference possible.
For more information on the 2008 Annual Conference and for
presentation summaries and photos, please visit
www.cdfai.org/conf2008.
Top of page...
|
|
|
Feature Article: Canadian Humanitarian Worker Security: Whose
Responsibility is it?
|
|
by Gordon Smith
Gordon Smith is the Director
of the Centre for Global Studies, and Adjunct Professor of Political
Science at the University of Victoria. Prior to 1997 he was with
Foreign Affairs Canada and, among other positions, held two
Ambassadorships and served as the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.
On August 13th, 2008, the Taliban attacked and brutally killed three
female aid workers from the International Rescue Society and their
Afghan driver outside of Kabul, Afghanistan.
Two were Canadians. This article is inspired by our close friend and
colleague, Shirley Case, whose life was cut short while in unselfish
service to Afghani children.
Canadians like Shirley, serving throughout the world in development,
humanitarian or peacebuilding activities, often find themselves in
complex scenarios in which infrastructure is insufficient to support
the needs of the population, legal structures are weak if they exist
at all, and the adherence to the rule of law is minimal. The risks
associated with serving in these environments are considerable.
Preparing for the World Abroad
Compared to Canadian diplomats, corporate workers, police and
military, Canadian aid workers rarely receive training adequate for
what might confront them in their humanitarian deployments. While
there are exceptions to this, the vast majority of first time
humanitarian workers go into the field without the benefit afforded to
others who go into dangerous and complex environments. Learning as you
go in this area is obviously fraught with danger.
The Changing Humanitarian Space
Much is said about the “humanitarian space.” Questions and heated
debates abound as humanitarian agencies find themselves increasingly
sharing this space with military - hearts and minds operations - and
politicised presence. From Colin Powell referring to humanitarian
actors as being a “force multiplier” to the head of USAID in 2003
threatening the funding of any agencies which refused to overtly
support the Bush administration, or French Foreign Minister Bernard
Kouchner's recent comments about obtaining information on Hamas from
French NGOs– humanitarian agencies and workers have been operating in
an increasingly confused and dangerous environment. Canadian military
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) and the convergence of defence,
development and diplomacy represent the institutionalization of these
changes.
A major study in 2006, Providing aid in insecure environments:
trends in policy and operations, sponsored in part by the Canadian
government, identified an alarming rise in the incidence of major acts
of violence – killings, kidnappings, and armed attacks resulting in
ser ious injury – against humanitarian workers.
Today, humanitarian workers in general, and more specifically Canadian
humanitarian workers in Afghanistan, have been put on notice; the
Taliban has issued specific statements of threat against them. For
those who remain and for those who have yet to deploy, the question
has to focus on how to respond to this seismic shift in the
operational environment.
Operational Security in Humanitarian Endeavours
Effective NGO operational security focuses on identifying threats,
examination of individual and agency vulnerability, assessment of
risk, development of mitigation strategies and, finally, a review of
residual or unmitigated risk. Both individuals and organisations need
clearly defined risk thresholds enabling clear and objective decision
making appropriate to any given moment.
The standard framework for NGO security planning is based on three
strategies: “acceptance, protection and deterrence.”
These represent options ranging from soft to hard and are not linear
in relationship, but more appropriately demonstrated by a triangle.
Acceptance
relies upon communities who “accept” the NGO’s
presence, consent to their activities, and see the NGOs as impartial,
all of which contributes to their overall operational security.
Protection
invokes more active strategies to augment the security
afforded through acceptance. This might include measures such
as developing and implementing comprehensive security policy and
procedures, reducing visibility and the use of protective devices –
personal security, communications devices, and security equipment, up
to and including the use of
unarmed guards.
Protection
can be used concurrently in environments where
acceptance is, by and large, sufficient.
Deterrence
is a move to more robust security in the knowledge that
community based acceptance and the use of protection
does not match the risk. Deterrence, at the highest levels
might include legal, political or economic sanctions. However the
reality for most NGOs is that deterrence will be framed by
heightened physical security, up to and including the employment of
armed security. The ultimate deterrence is the suspension of
operations and the withdrawal of all staff. Properly employed, this
range of security postures should allow an organization to react to
the risk environment in appropriate ways while remaining congruent
with its beliefs and values.
Acceptance
has been the unchallenged foundation for security of
humani tarian operations congruent with the NGO values of
transparency, neutrality and impartiality. Currently, the humanitarian
operating context in countries such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Chad,
Sudan, Iraq or the DRC is such that , regardless of community support,
a robust protection-based strategy with elements of
deterrence such as armed guards must be considered by NGOs as an
operational imperative. Further, the willingness to move to full
deterrence – ceasing operations and repatriating staff - must be a
realistic alternative.
Mission complacency combined with shifts in the operating environment
creates fertile ground in which implemented security strategies fail
to match the actual risks. An extensively used, overly simplified
formula, is that risk = threat x vulnerability. As humanitarian
workers we cannot change the threat, we can only influence positively
or negatively vulnerability. Proper application of well founded
security principles contribute to lowering an organization’s
vulnerability. However, it is also the responsibility of individuals
to minimize their vulnerability. That means having sufficient
training, experience and confidence to interpret what the risk levels
and the organization’s security posture means to them.
Staff members may feel pressure to override their own understanding of
risk, raising the threshold. This pressure, whether internal,
external, motivated by immaturity, lack of experience, or zeal to make
a difference, is often immense. Failure to align staff and NGO risk
values has the potential of for significant compromise.
What should be clear and logical is seldom so. In Iraq in October
2004, Care International operated in acceptance security
protocol despite the UN, IRC and most major NGOs having adopted robust
protection/deterrence or full deterrence strategies.
Margaret Hassan, the Dublin born head of CARE in Iraq, was married to
an Iraqi and had been there for over 25 years. She believed that she
had a high level of acceptance based on tenure: "She has
tremendous presence. If there is anybody who can build a rapport with
whoever these people
are, she will,"British film maker Ms Arbuthnot said, “ . . . she (Mrs
Hassan) did not fear being targeted in revenge attacks by Iraqis.”
Margaret Hassan was abducted while driving to work on October 19th
and subsequently killed. CARE ceased Iraq operations on the 20th of
October.
Preparation; Whose Responsibility is it?
Recruitment organizat ions, internship offering organizations,
educational work placement programs and governments themselves have a
direct responsibility when sending, recommending, recruiting or
otherwise encouraging individuals to participate in dangerous
situations. NGOs, constrained by competition for funding, attempt to
stringently apply each dollar to program delivery. Dollars attributed
to security training take away from program delivery leaving NGOs
resistant to increasing security expenditures. Internat ional
Co-operation Minister, Bev Oda, in charge of Canada’s largest
humanitarian funding agency CIDA, stressed that one of the priorities
for Afghanistan was “...(to) apply its resources and work with the
Afghan government and international partners to ensure measurable
progress between now and 2011... (by) providing humanitarian
assistance to the most vulnerable people.” Despite this emphasis, CIDA
would say that it is the responsibility of the individual and or their
organization to be prepared. Yet NGOs would be hard pressed to get
funding from CIDA if they added robust security training and security
measures as part of their operational costs.
Concurrent with the apparent lack of direct support for security
measures, CIDA took measures to further limit its exposure to
liability by changing clauses in its funding documentation.
Still others might argue that it is the role of the large
international organizations such as the UN to ensure the safety and
security of humanitarian workers. This is just not practical: “Very
little of the extra security funding within the UN has resulted in
extra security budget lines for the UN’s NGO implementing partners.
The major donors have financed joint training initiatives for
international NGOs, and some support has been provided to coordinated
security management in the field. However, this has not been a core
priority for NGOs.” As in so many other innovations in the field of
humanitarian affairs, it may be the time to be clear it is the role of
the donors to ensure, even demand, that appropriate security measures
and training form core capabilities of implementing partners.
Canada Protecting Canadians
It is clear that there needs to be training made available to
Canadians prior to their working in complex humanitarian situations.
It seems reasonable that this training should be provided as a service
at no cost, or at least embed the cost in the government’s overall
financial commitment to human security, international development or
other foreign policy programs. Pre- eployment screening, education,
awareness training, and actual scenario based training would help to
ensure that individuals have that capacity. The result would be
organizations in which all individuals are competent and the ability
to ‘mainstream’ safety and security is greatly enhanced. Corporations
and their employees could also access training programs on a fee for
service basis. Corporations would benefit in their staff having had
effective pre-deployment training. Employees would be more effective
in the field, and costs associated with support in foreign countries
would be lowered. Additionally, much of the material presented could
be applicable across a number of sectors – military, police,
government officials, corporations and humanitarian organizations. Key
concepts such as situational awareness, personal safety, threat,
vulnerability and risk assessme n t s, wou l d be invaluable. For
those people going to more complex environments, more intense training
could be provided. The Pear son Peacekeeping Centre at one time of
fered such a course: “ Foundat ions of Peace Operations.” Regrettably,
despite the growing number of Canadians working in humanitarian
efforts, course offerings have decreased due to the lack of government
funding. Instead, millions of dollars are directed through military
training assistance programs to officers from foreign nations. The
incongruence is overwhelming.
Conclusion
Complexity and risk are unfortunately the reali ty. Humanitarian
ideals, values and goals are frequently the very issues which engender
NGO vulnerabilities. Misunderstanding and failure to fully confront
the consequences of delivering humanitarian assistance in complex
environments leaves NGOs and their staff vulnerable. From the moment
of arrival in a humanitarian mission, individuals are vulnerable to
abduction, crossfire, IEDs and ambushes. These are the reality of the
threats humanitarian workers face as they attempt to provide
assistance in emergencies. Canada provides significant resources –
financial, but more importantly its citizens - to the field of
humanitarian relief , development and peacebuilding around the globe.
Ensuring that the work continues is critical; therefore it is
incumbent on the Government, on behalf of all Canadians, to ensure
that all of the people who give freely of themselves in the service of
others do so as well prepared aspossible.
Endnotes:
1. Colin Powell, “Remarks by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to the
National Foreign Policy Conference for Leaders of Non-Governmental
Organizations,” 26 October 2001,
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01102606.htm.
2. Andrew Natsios, “Remarks at the InterAction Forum, Closing Plenary
Session,” 21 May 2003,
www.interaction.org/forum2003/panels.html.
3.
http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Middle_East/10250881.html.
4. One consequence of this has been agencies such as MSF leaving
Afghanistan after more than 20 years of operational presence. Their
decision followed the targeted killing of 5 staff in 2004. They
rightly claimed that the shift in military priorities to include what
had
previously been distinct humanitarian operations, created confusion,
suspicion and the fertile ground for the actions being taken
against humanitarian workers.
5. Stoddard, Harmer and Haver, “Providing aid in insecure
environments:trends in policy and operations,” Humanitarian Policy
Group Report 23, September 2006.
6. Ibid. Since 1997, the absolute number of reported major acts of
violence (killings, kidnappings and armed attacks resulting in serious
injury) against aid workers has risen sharply, nearly doubling (a 92%
increase) between 1997–2001 and 2002–2005. All told, 408 separate acts
of major violence were perpetrated against aid workers over the
nine-year period, involving 947 victims, including 434 fatalities.
7.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/08/17/
Taliban_issues_warning_to_Canadians/UPI-28421219010140/.
8. Koenraad Van Brabant,
Operational Security Management in Violent
Environments
(ODI, June 2000).
9. In risk management, the calculation of risk associated with
a particular threat is most often stated as risk =
probability x impact. In the complex environment which we are
talking about we have restated that formula such that risk = threat
(probability x impact) x vulnerability. This speaks more clearly
as to where an individual or organization can affect the greatest
impact.
10. BBC News, October 20, 2004,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3756552.stm.
11.
http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/
speechesdiscours/2008_08_26.aspx.
12. A review of the sample budget for a crisis intervention program on
the CIDA website confirms that there are no line items allocated for
security training or extra security measures.
13. In fact, in a series of changes completed this year, CIDA added
clauses to its grant agreements which reduce their exposure to
liability in the event that an aid worker is injured, harmed or killed
while working on a CIDA funded program. It does suggest that somewhere
there has been a potential (yet real) liability identified for
funders.
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=abb2346e-88ae-4a9d-8b10-8da849b9f14b.
14. Stoddard, et al .
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
About Our Organization
|
|
Institute Profile
CDFAI is a research institute
pursuing authoritative research and new ideas aimed at ensuring Canada
has a respected and influential voice in the international arena.
Background
CDFAI is a charitable
organization, founded in 2001, and based in Calgary. CDFAI develops
and disseminates materials and carries out activities to promote
understanding by the Canadian public of national defence and foreign
affairs issues. CDFAI is developing a body of knowledge can be used
for Canadian policy development, media analysis and educational
support. The Fellows program, a group of highly experienced and
talented individuals, support CDFAI by authoring research papers and
essays, responding to media queries, running conferences, initiating
polling, and developing outreach and education projects.
Mission Statement
To be a catalyst for
innovative Canadian global engagement.
Goal/Aim
CDFAI was created to address
the ongoing discrepancy between what Canadians need to know about
Canadian foreign and defence policy and what they do know.
Historically, Canadians tend to think of foreign policy - if they
think of it at all - as a matter of trade and markets. They are
unaware of the importance of Canada engaging diplomatically,
militarily, and with international aid in the ongoing struggle to
maintain a world that is friendly to the legitimate free flow of
goods, services, people and ideas across borders and the promotion of
human rights. They are largely unaware of
the connection between a
prosperous and free Canada and a world of globalization and liberal
internationalism. CDFAI is dedicated to education Canadians, and
particularly those who play leadership roles in shaping Canadian
international policy, to the importance of Canada playing an active
and ongoing role in world affairs, with tangible diplomatic, military
and aid assets.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
|
Subscribe
|
|
If you would like to be
included on our regular mailing regarding conferences, lectures and
newsletters, please send your particulars to
contact@cdfai.org or sign up
for our mailing list at www.cdfai.org. All email addresses gathered by
CDFAI are kept confidential as we do not release or sell any
information collected from the public to any third party without
explicit permission to do so.
CDFAI also adheres to a strict
no-SPAM policy and as such, does not forward emails containing
information provided by third parties and/or organizations and
businesses with which it has no official interest, relevancy and/or
affiliation.
Top of page...
|
|
|
|
|
|
