Is Martin a Foreign Policy Elitist?

It would appear Paul Martin is shifting in his support for international institutions, and particularly the UN. On his visit to the US he outlined a plan for a G20 summit of national world leaders that in Martin's words would:

"We need to get the right mix of countries in the same room talking without a set script," he said. "We do believe a new approach directly involving political leaders could help break a lot of logjams." (for the full article click here)

Under Chretien Canada very clearly took the position that multilateral agreements hammered out through international bodies, and particularly through the United Nations, was the way to go. While Martin's plan does retain aspects of multilateralism, it appears to be attempting to create a rather exclusive club of nations.

How effective the United Nations is depends almost totally on how much its member nations, particularly the more powerful ones, like the United States, are willing to work through it. While creating an exclusive club of nations may reduce the number of voices that have to be listened to, and perhaps save some time, the very nature of excluding effectively silences a large proportion of the world's voices.

Mr. Martin's plan appears to have two rather unsavory roots. The first root is what appears to be an elitist appeal. He is suggesting the creation of an exclusive club for the world's most powerful nations. That Martin would float this idea suggests a desire on his part to focus on talking only to those who's opinions he feels matter. But more than that, instead of looking to work through existing international institutions, he puts forward "The Martin Plan". The whole notion reminds me of the takeover of the Liberal Party and its partial rebranding as the "Martin Party". It is a strain of elitist egotism that seems to lurk behind so many of Martin's actions.

The second unsavory root, however, is the time and place he chose to bring forth this plan. We all know the dislike the Bush Administration has had for acting within the United Nations. The culmination of that dislike occurred last year with the launch of the Iraq War. The failure of the UN, specifically the Security Council, to approve the war, led many in the Bush Administration, and the right-wing press in the US, to state that the UN was no longer a useful institution. Martin's plan clearly seems aimed at avoiding the UN as a forum for world leadership, and by announcing his plan in Washington he appears to appease the unilateral tendencies of the US and particularly the Bush Administration.

Instead of trying to find ways to appease the United States by suggesting means to circumvent well established international institutions, it would seem wiser to try and find ways to encourage the US to work harder within what currently exists. Yes, operating in a United Nations framework does place some limitations on the US, but the US would still have the most powerful voice within that framework. Moreover, it would encourage other nations to follow the US example.

Lazy CBC Press

I just wanted to point out an example of lazy journalistic practice and historical revisionism. Today the CBC has a news item about the US occupation arranging to have Fallujah placed under the "protection" of the Fallujah Protective Army:

The Fallujah Protective Army will include up to 1,100 Iraqi soldiers and will be led by a former division commander under Saddam. It will move into the hotbed of anti-U.S. insurgency beginning on Friday, U.S. marine Lt.-Col. Brennan Byrne said. (for the entire article click here)

The CBC report fails to mention if US troops will be a part of this "protective" force. In fact, the whole article sounds like a barely edited press release from CENTCOM (the American military press wing). The article ends by blaming the uprising in Fallujah on the Iraqis with the following:

Many insurgents in the city are believed to be former members of the Iraqi army or pro-Saddam militias.

The Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington said the city was a key bastion of support for Saddam Hussein and enjoyed economic subsidies under his regime.

When the regime toppled, Fallujah stood to lose all of its privileges, making it a hotbed of resistance.

Ah I see, so the sole reason the people in Fallujah have risen up against the US occupation is because they're pissed they aren't getting the perks they used to under Saddam. What an absolute load of crap. Is this the kind of garbage that passes for so-called professional journalism these days?

If the hacks at the CBC would take the time to do their jobs they would know full well the reasons for the strength of resistance in Fallujah has far more to do with Iraqi civilian massacres at the hands of US troops in that city. The following quotes are taken from an article in the CBC's own website archive!!!:

Last Updated Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:34:09 FALLUJAH, IRAQ - U.S. soldiers opened fire on a crowd of Iraqi protesters late Monday. Iraqi sources say 13 Iraqis were killed and 75 injured.

A hospital director in Fallujah, 50 kilometres west of Baghdad, said the dead included three boys younger than 11.(for the entire article click here)

It took me less than a minute to search the CBC archive and find the article that detailed American forces killing children in Fallujah. Now that would seem to explain a little better the roots of the uprising, so why isn't it mentioned?

How to Strangle the Economy

Two of my biggest beefs with the Liberals, particularly while Paul Martin was Finance Minister, were the steps taken to reduce the deficit that literally strangled the Canadian economy. The economic rot created by these policies is finally starting to be recognized by the news media, and the Canadian public in general.

The greatest negative economic impact is the off-loading of the cost of post-secondary education on to students:

Students graduating from college or university in 2000 owed 30 per cent more than graduates did in 1995.

The Statistics Canada survey said students with a bachelor's degree owed about $20,000 while college graduates owed $13,000.

The report said the rise could be linked to the soaring cost of tuition. (for the rest of the article click here)

The report does not measure the number of people who gave up on getting of post-secondary education, because of the massively increasing cost.

Education is rapidly becoming a luxury that Canadians, particularly low income Canadians, cannot afford. By reducing the number of people able to get a post-secondary education, there will be a number of long term negative effects. There will be less people available for complex and innovative work, particularly in the areas of cutting edge research and hi-tech. Less lower income Canadians will be able to make the transition to better paying jobs, thus reducing the tax base.

The other major area of negative economic impact is the lack of support for families, particularly those with young children. As government supports, like employment insurance have been massively hacked away at, greatly increased stress has been placed on young families. Many families have opted out of having children altogether.

For millions of Canadians, the conditions of work and the impact of those conditions on their families are now so difficult that a Health Canada study has called the pace of work in Canada "completely unsustainable." The National Work-Life Conflict Study, released in July, 2002, states that a decade ago, approximately 38 per cent of the work force was "highly stressed;" by 2002, that number was 55 per cent.

The details make for disturbing reading. One in four Canadian workers is now working more than 50 hours a week. Many employees are so terrified of losing their jobs that they "voluntarily" work millions of hours of unpaid overtime every year. The report, based on a survey of 31,000 workers, stated that for workers, stress and burnout are increasing, and so are reports of sickness.

The study confirms that families are delaying in having children, and when they do, they choose to have fewer of them. Families are also relinquishing the care and guidance of children to day care and extended school programs. Family life is limited or non-existent.
(for the rest of the article click here)

Unless and until the governments at all levels in Canada show a willingness to start reinvesting tax dollars in Canadians, as opposed to simply propagandizing the far less significant economic benefits of paying down debt, the problems caused by years of neglect will begin to take a serious toll. The baby-boom generation, who benefited the most from tax-friendly government and their cradle to grave supports (which began to end 20 years ago as the last of that generation reached adulthood), will find their old age retirement to be far more difficult.

Sadly, there is next to no focus in the Canadian political establishment on actual policy. What little policy there is, is currently driven by programs of illusory fiscal prudence; programs which encourage the foundation our national house to crumble away.

Human Shield vs. Human Sacrifice

Israelis frequently react with understandable horror at lengths Palestinians will go to try and harm Israeli society. Suicide bombers have become a ubiquitous part of life in the region, and we have recently begun to see the use of both women and children as bombers. The following BBC article demonstrates the depths of hatred among Palestinians for Israel, as it focuses on a picture of a young Palestinian child dressed as a suicide bomber, but the slant of the article doesn't bother to touch the roots of the hatred:

Israeli prime ministerial spokesman David Baker said the picture was symptomatic of what he regarded as anti-Jewish indoctrination. "What is obvious is that Palestinians are feeding the hatred of Jews and Israelis to their children at the earliest possible age," he said. (for the rest of the article click here)

Obviously the sort of indoctrination that occurs is disturbing. The idea of teaching children to become suicide bombers is deplorable, but what the article fails to acknowledge is the environment that encourages such behaviour. In fact, it focuses on the outrage and indignation of Israelis over the suggested use of children as human bombs. But what about the use of children as human shields?

It seems rather ironic that the Israeli government will use images of exploited Palestinian children for propaganda purposes, while at the very same time their military engages in truly atrocious practices by using Palestinian children as human shields.

A photograph of a Palestinian boy tied to an Israeli police jeep has been handed to justice officials charged with investigating complaints over the use of "human shields" against demonstrators.

The boy, 13-year-old Mohammed Bedwan, and three adult protesters were tied to border police vehicles last week during one of what have become almost daily demonstrations against the routing of the Israeli government's barrier through Palestinian land. (for the rest of the article click here)

It is obviously important to remember that the people on both sides engaging in this sort of exploitation of children are only a tiny percentage of the population, while focusing on what they do makes for compelling news and propaganda.

But one of the lessons from this should be a recognition on both sides that members of their community are guilty of crimes. The Israelis complain bitterly about the inability of the Palestinian Authority to police its people, yet the Israeli government regularly lets their own people commit crimes for which they go unpunished. Of course, given the nature and depth of hatred, it may very well be that the two sides are incapable of beginning to resolve their differences without outside intervention.

Martin's Iraq Plan

Next week PM Paul Martin meets with US President George Bush, this is most likely a photo op more than a real diplomatic meeting, but Martin will apparently be trying to bring up a number of issues. The issue of Iraq and Canada's role in reconstruction is one area Martin will be attempting to deal with, and the proposed nature of that role is discussed in today's Toronto Star:

Designed to help restore a failed state while keeping Canadians out of harm's way, the proposal calls for Ottawa to dramatically strengthen its current $300 million commitment to Iraq's post-war reconstruction by developing training centres in neighbouring Jordan to support everything from justice and elections to federalism.

While in theory the Canadian plan has some merit, given the current situation in Iraq, particularly the building strength of the Iraqi resistance to the American occupation, setting up training centres to promote democracy will likely turn out to be simply a waste of government time and money.

There is not going to be any Iraqi sovereignty any time soon. The massacre in Falluja continues to escalate, and there is a growing threat of one in Najaf. Both of these incidents have begun to drive elements of both Sunni and Shia resistance to begin acting in support of each other.

A tipping point has been reached in Iraq, one I've brought up before on my blog. While I doubt any Iraqi wants war, I think the recent horror in Falluja, has convinced enough of the general population, that the US will not provide them a fair resolution. In fact, they've borne witness to the kind brutality the Americans are willing to inflict.

As far as Martin's plan goes there simply won't be the stability available in Iraq to provide a forum for democratic discussions, let alone the willingness on the part of the Americans to actually let a free and fair vote take place that would likely install an Islamic Shia leadership.

If anything the violence in Iraq is going to gradually get worse, as the American forces periodically "put-down" various uprisings, causing hundreds of civilian casualties, that in turn will drive ever more Iraqis into the resistance.

I think Paul Martin is attempting to be shrewd politically by throwing the Bush Administration a bone of support in their efforts to "rebuild and democratize" Iraq. It shows he is on good relations with the US President, and that will certainly look good in the eyes of Martin's more ideologically right-wing constituency; especially those who are a part of the elite Canadian business establishment.

It is also a plan that avoids any hint of military commitment on the part of Canada, which helps avoid angering the anti-Iraq War crowd here in Canada.

But ultimately Martin's plan really about doing nothing, or worse simply wasting Canadian time and money, while appearing to contribute to Iraq and be statesmen-like. If Martin really wanted to facilitate positive change in Iraq, he would work to convince the Bush Administration that their efforts there are going to be fruitless. The Bush Administration, and Americans in general, have blown their chance to create democracy in Iraq. All they have to look forward to is a gradually deteriorating situation that will cost more lives on all sides, although the heaviest burden will be borne by Iraqis.

The best advice Martin could give Bush would be to declare victory in Iraq and leave. While there is a risk of civil war in Iraq should the Americans leave, there will be no peace while they remain. But I don't expect the Canadian Prime Minister, and especially not Paul Martin, to be so brave as to suggest that rational course of action. No instead we get platitudes and empty plans.

Screw the Vote

Ah Jian Ghomeshi, CBC host extraordanaire, you either love him, or like the comics on This Hour Has 22 Minutes you want to beat the crap out of him. He and the CBC crew have come up with a truly "original" concept for getting cynical apathetic young people interested in voting...be cynical and apathetic... yeah that old reverse psychology works every time!

SCREW THE VOTE is an hour-long special with >play host Jian Ghomeshi airing Friday, May 7 at 11:30 p.m. on CBC Television.

Planning to vote in the upcoming election? Why bother?

Ghomeshi goes on the road with a campaign that reflects the sentiments of young Canadians across the country. According to Elections Canada, barely 25 per cent of Canadians between 18 and 24 years old voted in the 2000 federal election.

"Rock The Vote" concerts have been around since 1990 in the United States, with no discernible impact. Facts in hand, Ghomeshi decides if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!.

Personally I've always voted in elections, municipal, provincial and federal. I don't see it as a right, I see it as a responsibility. I've never been fully comfortable with the platform of any politician or party I've voted for, but I feel I need to exercise my franchise at least to help prevent those I disagree with most from being elected

I find the sort of thing Ghomeshi is doing somewhat distasteful. Not because the issue isn't important, but because the method being used is about cajoling or perhaps even begging people to exercise their democratic privilege.

The issue of making voting manditory has be raised before (as it is done in Australia), and I for one am very much in favour of the idea. Like paying taxes, voting is vital to the running of a participatory democracy. Yes corporations and interest groups have far too much influence over government, but refusing or being too lazy to vote is just irresponsible as not paying or cheating on your taxes. And like not paying your taxes I think it should be illegal. If you really cannot stomach voting for any particular party or politician, you can always spoil your ballot at the voting booth.

That said, I also think a large part of the problem with apathy over voting has to do with a failure on the part of public education, and Canadian society in general, to provide a context that makes citizens, and young people in particular, understand the importance of being able to vote. Because we live in such ideal surroundings in relation to much of the rest of the world, we have the freedom and time to obsess over irrelevancies, like the latest trends in fashion or who's going win on the latest episode of Survivor.

While many might grumble and bitch over having to spend some precious television watching time actually getting off their ass to vote in an election, I think a lot of people need exactly the kind of kick in the pants manditory voting would cause. But I also think more has to be done to educate people, and I'm not entirely sure what the method would be. The media is saturated with messages of consumption, and unsurprisingly that desire to consume is combined with passive mindless entertainment is what eats-up most of people's lives. Perhaps “Screw the Vote” is part of the answer, but until the message of democratic values is something that can, if not drown out, at least compete effectively with the trumpeting of "Zoom, zoom", "I'm lovin' it", and "pass the Courvoisier" I don't think there's much hope of young people voting in large numbers... No it'll more likely require some pretty significant catastrophies to get people to pay attention and then start to care.

Opposition to Vancouver Development

Over the weekend I helped some friends with speeches they were going to present to Vancouver city council in opposition to a proposed development in their neighbourhood.

But before I get into that, first a little bit of introduction. For those living in Vancouver, especially the downtown core, you're probably quite familiar with the massive amount of construction taking place. When you drive over the Cambie Street bridge heading downtown you can now see a giant forest of residential towers on False Creek. A friend of mine, originally from Japan, suggested the residential density is beginning to remind him of parts of Tokyo, only the buildings are taller.

I generally like the increase in density, and I am very much in favour of having a "lived in" downtown. I've experienced some US cities where the downtown areas are abandoned after dark, as people head to the suburbs, and they have a rather unfriendly feel. But there are a number of things I don't like about the Vancouver downtown core. The first and biggest flaw is the cost for both renting and purchasing apartments. For the cost of a decent two bedroom apartment in downtown Vancouver, you can buy a fairly large house in most of the rest of Canada. Too much density can also start to cause problems, especially when residential towers start to crowd too close to each other, and developers try to squeeze as many apartments as possible into a building. I for one would not want to live in a postage stamp sized apartment.

Yet with the cost of residences downtown being so high, and people buying them anyway, development isn't slowing. And with the frenzy to build, I've begun noticing an increasing tendency to ignore the needs of neighbourhoods. Money talks, and Vancouver city council and city planning seem all too ready to listen to what it has to say.

All of this leads me back to that particular development project I mentioned at the top. It is located in the downtown core, and it is a glaring example of using city planning loopholes to try and ram through a project that clearly harms the residents of the neighbourhood in question. In this case, the proposed development is a hotel, and it is using heritage preservation zoning to enable the developers to ignore regular civic zoning for the neighbourhood.

For a more thorough description of the project you can view the opposition website by clicking here. But to summarize, the site of the proposed development contains an old wooden frame heritage house from Vancouver's past. Preserving the heritage house on the location of the hotel enables the developers to build a far larger hotel that would not otherwise be allowed for the area. What is truly bizarre about the whole project, however, is that the heritage house in question would actually be integrated into the proposed hotel. Now I don't know about you, but a small wooden frame house at the base of a large concrete tower will seem rather incongruous. From my point of view, it actually makes a mockery of the whole reason for having heritage preservation in the first place.

What is disturbing about this development, should it be approved, is that it signals a possible shift in the nature of the construction boom in the Vancouver downtown core that could have repercussions for future development, particularly in other parts of Vancouver. Up until now, most of the developments have done a fairly decent job of taking resident impact into account. But this proposed project manages to use zoning rules meant to improve quality of life and preserve heritage, to do the exact opposite. It will reduce quality of life for the neighbourhood and turn the idea of heritage into a joke. Letting developers exploit zoning rules at the expense of residents is not only unfair, but in the long run a stupid idea. The more it happens the greater the negative impact on the livability of the area. Better to stop it now.

Where Does the Conservative Party Stand on the War in Iraq?

The upsurge in violence in Iraq over the past week has been alarming. We're seeing the convergence of both Shia and Sunni Muslim attacks against the American occupation, and suddenly a lot more people on all sides are dying.

While I abhor all the violence, I am frustrated. And what frustrates me is not only the majority of the Canadian press coverage, but also what seems to be the general Canadian public attitude toward the war in Iraq. Many Canadians I've talked to seem to distance themselves from the whole subject. We seem to conclude that because we were lucky enough to avoid participation in the war, largely due the stance of former PM Jean Chretien and his refusal to participate without UN sanction, we no longer need to deal with our stance on the issue. Instead we can merely play the part of casual observers, clucking our tongues at all the carnage.

But we have a federal election coming, whether in the fall or spring. Issues that have dominated election related press, such as the sponsorship scandal, and the federal budget, are important. But what shape our foreign policy will take under the party that takes power is also vitally important to Canadian interests. The foreign policy decisions of other countries have had immense impact on their societies. We've been witness to the bombings in Madrid, a horrible terrorist response to Spain's participation in the war in Iraq. We've seen the kinds of casualties the Americans have been subject to as they attempt to pacify the Iraqi "insurgents". We've also heard of the carnage suffered by Iraqis, particularly innocent Iraqi civilians, as they get caught in the deadly crossfire. The direction the next Canadian federal government takes with its foreign policy could have deadly serious consequences for the Canadian public. It is vital that the stance each party is going to take be examined and debated so that Canadians can make an informed decision when they go to the polls. Foreign policy is, however, an issue that has remained largely unexamined by the mainstream media.

So here I'll try to do my small part to begin examining this issue, with particular focus on what the stance of various parties and party leaders have had in the past, if they have not made their stance clear at present. First the Conservative Party of Canada.

I think it is very important to remember that, Steven Harper, the current leader of the federal Conservative party, was very much in favour of participating as an ally of the US in the war on Iraq. He made it very clear repeatedly in parliament that Canadians should be aiding the Americans in the Iraqi invasion. He commented on numerous occasions that he considered it disgraceful that Canada would not support its closest ally.

Since becoming the leader of the federal Conservative party, and as the situation in Iraq has worsened, Steven Harper has been remarkably silent on the issue of Iraq. He has either refused to comment, or he has skirted the issue, even in those rare instances that the Canadian press has raised it at all.

On the Conservative Party website, they have a link to an interim policy paper. It is a very short document, as policy papers go, and for the most part the language it uses is about as vague as language can get while still appearing to say something. Here is an excerpt that contains the entire foreign policy platform of the Conservative Party:

The Conservative Party of Canada supports a foreign policy that protects Canada's sovereignty and independence, promotes our national interests (political, economic and strategic), contributes to collective security and defense, promotes democratic principles and human rights, and assists in international development.

A Conservative government will recognize the importance of an ethical dimension in foreign policy and will advance the values broadly supported by Canadians.

A Conservative government will coordinate Canada's international relations, trade and foreign policies to advance the country's economic interests while promoting human rights and individual freedom.

Parliamentary Role in Foreign Affairs
A Conservative government will make Parliament responsible for exercising effective oversight over the conduct of Canadian foreign policy and the commitment of Canadian Forces to foreign operations.

Other than various platitudes that just about every Canadian across the political spectrum could agree to, the Conservative Party foreign policy position clearly takes no stance on any foreign policy issue. Canadians are essentially left to determine on their own what position the Conservative party would take.

I think it is vital that Steven Harper come clean on his and his new party's position on the war in Iraq. Given that had he been in power last year, he clearly would have taken Canada to war with the United States. Our troops would be embroiled in a quickly deteriorating quagmire, suffering casualties, and likely inflicting them on innocent Iraqi civilians as well as "insurgents". He would have taken Canadians many steps closer to potential terrorist reprisals, which it is very easy to say should not be tolerated as a factor in our decision making, as long a you are not the one to suffer the consequences.

It is vital Canadians consider the consequences of having to further militarize and police our society, because we have to beware of terrorist actions that are a direct consequence of Canadian violence in foreign nations. Macho posturing has no place in weighing such important decisions.

The costs in Canadian lives and treasure for such actions will fall directly on the public, not on the politicians. It is the politician's responsibility to carefully consider the implications of their actions. But they still will be far safer than the average Canadian. The political elite will have the advantage of hiding behind a wall of security.

I think the Canadian press has a responsibility to make the foreign policy stance of every federal political party a major component of electoral coverage. Canadians need to be able to make an informed choice about their political leadership and the direction they will take Canada in the world should any particular party gain power.

Canadian Election Blog Government Trouble

For the past few weeks I've been participating in a Canadian Election Blog on BlogsCanada. The point of the Elections Blog is to post commentary on political aspects of the supposedly upcoming, but as yet unannounced, Canadian federal election. The idea behind this was to provide a sampling of Canadian blogging community opinion and analysis of the various political parties and issues. We also can comment on each other's work, as can any of our readers.

Needless to say there is quite a diverse group of opinion. It includes everything from libertarian right-wingers, ranging through to particular federal party followers, to left leaning commentators like myself. What I find most interesting is that, while we tend to follow a lot of mainstream media coverage, the details that get raised typically do not follow a mainstream point of view. Moreover, a lot of issues that are not covered at all by the mainstream press are raised on the blog. Particular attention has recently been paid to other political parties on the Canadian landscape. What more mainstream press would consider marginal parties, such as the Green Party of Canada.

But for the most part, coverage on the Election Blog has focused on more mainstream election issues, and the sponsorship scandal, or AdScam, has been of particular focus for many commentators, myself included. Which is why the latest news about BlogsCanada facing action from the federal government is a little alarming. The basis for federal government action appears to be the design and layout of the BlogsCanada site. The following quote, and the details of the action can be found in the following BlogsCanada press release:

BlogsCanada does mimic the look of an official government website. However, the first words on each page are, "Definitely NOT the Government of Canada." Ironically, that bit of text is one of the three site features with which the Treasury Board takes issue. The combination of the Canadian flag with two blocks of text immediately to the right is trademarked as the Government of Canada's corporate signature.

Now anyone taking even a passing glance at BlogsCanada can see both the resemblance to federal government websites, but can also clearly see that BlogsCanada is not in anyway affiliated with the federal government. That is made blatantly clear. If anyone was going to come to any conclusion about BlogsCanada, it would be that the look and layout satirically spoofs the look and feel of Canadian federal government websites.

One of the concerns that I share with the BlogsCanada owner Jim Elve is that the cease and desist order has appeared at a time when site traffic to BlogsCanada has increased, drawn largely by the increasing political coverage on the BlogsCanada Election Blog. Here is another quote from the BlogsCanada press release:

"BlogsCanada has been operating since last summer without any government interference," Elve said from his Waterford, Ontario home office. "It wasn't until the E-Group got going and AdScam broke that they took any notice of us. Some of our group members have been very prolific in posting articles condemning the government since the scandal broke and I've seen a large increase in traffic to the site. Much of that new traffic is originating from gc.ca (Government of Canada) servers."

I certainly hope, as Canadians are finding ways to voice their opinions through alternative forms of participatory media, that the federal government is not seeking ways to shut them up.

For some other opinions on this issue check out the following blog postings:

James Bow takes the position that while government action may not have been unexpected by BlogsCanada, and perhaps was designed for publicity, the issue of copyright infringment is far more murky particularly where parody is involved. Click here for his own words.

Another blog, Teledyn, also comments that given the publically owned nature of the government's copyrights, it seem a little rich that the government would attack a citizen for creating a public service (specifically a directory of Canadian blogging, and forum for Canadian political commentary). Click here for Teledyn's commentary.

US asks for Iran's, yes Iran's, Help

Last week in my Tactics vs. Strategy article I covered the neo-conservative blogging community's desire to blame Iran for the Shia uprising. While my focus in that piece was to point out the numbskullery present in that accusation against the Iranians, I also want to point out now that this Iran baiting is a common theme among neo-con commentators.

The reasons for the repeated demonization of the Iran, however, has far more to do with the political goals of the neo-cons. I think most neo-cons in the intelligence loop of the Bush Administration, such as Wolfowitz, and Perle know very well that Iran is not directly involved in inciting uprisings in Iraq. They instead seek any rumor they can grab on to and then inflate it through propagandistic spin. Being secretly involved in the Shia uprising is one inflation. Claims that Iran is the terror capital of the world, or that they are on the doorstep of developing nuclear weapons are others.

As the following article on the schizophrenic US policy toward Iran on Znet describes, the real Iran policy goal of the neo-con community in the US appears to be a desire for military intervention in Iran. Now the article I provide a link to focuses on the very clear neo-con links to extreme right-wing Israeli policy, which currently holds sway in Israel under Sharon. The article also describes the belief of interviewee (specifically Sasan Fayazmanesh a professor of Economics at California State University, Fresno) that the reason neo-cons want military intervention in Iran is to eliminate an enemy of Israel. I think this is in part true, but it also fails to mention what appears to be an unabiding belief on the part of neo-conservative commentators in the value of what they frequently refer to as "hard power". I've commented on this phenomenon in the past as well.

What I want to point out, however, is that today multiple news reports are stating that the Americans have formally requested Iran talk to al-Sadr, who is purported to be the leader of the Shia uprising.

See this Guardian article containing the following quote, "The development came as an official Iranian delegation arrived in Baghdad to mediate between US officials and Mr Sadr, who is wanted by coalition authorities in connection with the murder of a rival Shia cleric last year."

See this BBC article containing the following quote, "An Iranian foreign ministry delegation has arrived in Baghdad in a bid to help resolve the crisis over Mr Sadr. 'It is our position that to the extent that Iraq's neighbours can help calm the situation and help achieve a stable transition, those efforts would be welcome,' an unnamed US official told AFP news agency in Washington.

See also this lengthy Aljazeera article.

If we are to believe the neo-con's accusations against Iran, it makes next to no sense to ask Iran to act as a go-between. Neo-cons claim Iran's goal is to incite the uprising to harm the US efforts in Iraq, yet the US is willing to use them to try and influence a peaceable solution to the current stand-off? It is also interesting to note just how little play Iran's efforts are getting in the western press.

What this points to, in my opinion, is repeated efforts on the part of neo-conservative commentators to convince themselves, as much as anyone else, on the efficacy of their policies by whatever means necessary. Outright lies attached to remote possibilities put forward as the illusion of truth are their order of the day. Sadly the myopia all this lying creates appears to affect the neo-cons themselves as much as anyone. They put forward clearly flawed policies whose only appeal is the simplicity of force. A simplicity I guess a simpleton like George W. Bush can understand and act upon.

Avian Flu and the Dangers of Factory Farms

The avian flu outbreak in the chicken farming industry in British Columbia has been ongoing for some weeks now. Enough time has passed in the crisis to begin drawing some initial conclusions. What is becoming blatantly clear, but is being woefully under-reported, is the fact that factory farming methods are largely responsible for the extent of the devastation.

Blame for the spread of the virus has been heaped on wild birds coming in contact with chickens, although transmission has more likely been facilitated by the virus being carried on the clothes and vehicles of workers in poultry factory farms. What isn't being acknowledged often enough is the impact of the conditions factory farmed chickens live in. The following article from the Toronto Star describes the conditions and why they have such a negative effect:

Almost all the chickens bred for meat in North America are the same breed. They are bred specifically to crave food and to grow at an accelerated rate. They are fed a carefully constructed diet, complete with antibiotics for disease control and are kept in sheds with near-continuous artificial light.

They spend their entire short lives eating, sleeping and defecating in the same, confined space and are sent to slaughter at between 34 and 42 days old.

Research (not to mention common sense) tells us that these conditions are unhealthy and stressful for the birds. Metabolic disorders, lameness and skin diseases are common among broiler chickens, and stress from their artificial environment can impair their immune systems.

Free-range and organic chicken farms in B.C. have been remarkably little affected by the actual disease, despite the conditions they raise their chickens in making it far more likely for their chickens to be in contact with wild birds carrying the flu. From a merely commonsensical point of view it would seem the methods used to raise organic chicken are far safer, not only for the chickens, but also for the human population. There would be far less chance of disease spreading. There would be far less chance of the disease mutating into a virulent human form. As food, organic chickens would be safer to eat, because they would be healthier.

Factory farms developed as an effort to "mechanize" or "industrialize" what is essentially a biological system. The idea was to create efficiencies of scale by placing enourmous numbers of specially bred livestock in what essentially amounts to a production line. But biological systems are far more complex than mechanically engineered systems. Living creatures are not simply gears, or circuit boards. Their interaction with the environment they are placed in is far more complex than that of simply engineered products.

Given that this problem is one largely engineered by those who have taken up the factory farming trend in an effort to maximize cost savings and ultimately maximize profit, it would make sense that they should pay for the results of their mistakes.

I for one am totally against bailing out agribusiness that engages farming methods that end up devastating their own industry. They should suffer the consequences of their actions. They have been repeatedly warned that the conditions they raise their livestock in are unhealthy. In fact, they can see it with their own eyes should they care to look.

Diseases like avian flu and Mad Cow are nature's way of telling us that factory farming is dangerous, and ultimately will harm not only the environment, but humans as well. Who knows what shape and form the next livestock disease will take, or how many people, let a lone livestock, it will kill. But one thing is certain, if we continue to allow the proliferation of factory farming, we are sure to find out, and we are sure to suffer the consequences.

Worm food

I don't normally go to Aljazeera for science news, but this article caught my attention. It details the development of a treatment for inflammatory bowl disease (IBS) that makes use of the eggs of intestional parasites commonly known as pig whipworms.

The theory behind the creation of the treatment was developed by gastroenterologist Joel Weinstock of the University of Iowa. He felt the rise in IBS over the last 50 years in western industrialized nations has to do with what he sees as an oversanitization of people's bowels. His conjecture was that a person's bowels can become overactive without the presense of these parasites, as humans evolved to cope with the parasites being in the environment.

This idea closely parallels another development in the health management of human digestion with the increasing use of probiotic supplements. Probiotic supplements are comprised of friendly forms of bacteria that inhabit the human digestive tract. Humans need these friendly forms of bacteria to properly digest the food they eat, and they also seem to have other positive effects like disease prevention. Antibiotic use, or a poor diet can kill off or disrupt the bacterial balance in a person's gut, making proper digestion exceptionally difficult. This frequently leads to many forms of related ailments as people with digestive problems are unable to absorb all the nutrients they need to stay healthy.

This kind of science is still fairly new, but it goes a long way to indicating the kind of complexity present in the biological environment.

Turning Point: Iraq as Vietnam

Over the past week there have been a number of escalating incidents in Iraq that have led to a huge increase in violence. The substantial difference this time is that the majority of the violence involves radical elements of the Shia community. The Shia have previously confined themselves to railing against the Americans, but no longer.

One of the dangers for the occupation forces is that this violence could draw all the Shia militias into insurgency actions. If this were to happen it would almost certainly require additional troops be sent to Iraq. But the greatest danger would be a coordination between the Shia and Sunni militias in attacks against the occupation forces. Instead of the civil war between different religious groups that the American occupation has been predicting should they leave, we could see the gradual alliance of Iraqis against the occupiers.

Most journalists trace the initial spark for the Shia violence to the shutting down of a radical Shia newspaper by the Americans. This led to a series of violent confrontations.

At the same time the Sunni population, who have until now comprised the majority of the insurgents, has also seen an increase in violence. The most heavily covered of these by the mainstream media being the killings in Falluja of four American military "contractors", and the American response. A response, that by all accounts, is an all out military attack, the likes of which has not been seen since the American declared an end of the war.

The upturn in violence has prompted many in the US to compare the Iraq War with the war in Vietnam. Should the Shia and the Sunni communities begin to act in conjunction with each other, I agree that the so-called Vietnamization of the Iraq conflict could gradually develop.

But one of the many things important to remember about Vietnam is that the conflict was far longer than just the major American military involvement in the 1960s. Vietnam was colonized by the French in the 19th century. It was briefly conquered by Japan during the WWII era, and then returned to the French. The resistance in Vietnam began in earnest with Allied support against the Japanese occupation. With the return of the French after the defeat of Japan, the Vietnamese resistance turned its attention to getting rid of the French, and later the Americans. There was a sustained period of some 30 to 40 years of violent military action, most of it in the form of guerilla attacks. Forty years is a long time for the development of a resistance movement, and it is wise to keep this sense of time in perspective when comparing Iraq to Vietnam, and to the development of a coordinated Iraqi resistance to the American led occupation.

However, what is clear, is that due to the incompetence of those in charge of the American occupation of Iraq, specifically the Bush Administration, the gradual trend in Iraq is toward the development of coordinated Iraqi resistance against the occupation. The reasons for this are many, but they largely comprise the American's inability to provide security and even a modest amount of reliable civic services, such as electricity, water and sanitation to the larger Iraqi population. In fact, that lack of security isn't simply that the Americans don't protect Iraqis, but that the American military routinely kills innocent civilians, as scared young American troops shoot first and ask questions later. Yes, Iraqis know one of the reasons the Americans invaded Iraq was to secure its oil reserves, and that does colour their perception of the Americans. But it is the danger and hardships of Iraqis' day-to-day lives that impacts them the most.

People like myself in the wealthy west sometimes seem to have a hard time grasping the importance of civic services and the rule of law in so-called civilized society. We make a lot of noise about "freedom" and "democracy" without really seeming to understand the foundation on which those treasures rest. We take the foundation for granted. But how can you be free when you worry about getting shot every time you step outside your door? How can you concern yourself with voting, when you have to spend most of your days scrounging for food and water?

Last year prior to the Iraq invasion, I had a number of arguments with people over the sheer stupidity of the coming war. But my basic concern, and the root of my opposition, had little to do with the horror of war, even though in my mind that was reason enough not to invade. My primary concern was that, while I felt the Bush Administration would win an invasion and depose Saddam, they would not find peace, because they clearly had no understanding of just how massive an undertaking they were about to engage in. (See my earlier post "Iraq, It's All in the Details")

Forget the history of UN enforced sanctions that had caused the deaths of half a million of Iraqi children to malnutrition and poor health care. Forget the American betrayal of the Shia after having encouraged them to rise up against Saddam, only to have the Americans stand idle while Saddam massacred the rebels. Forget even the innocent civilians killed during the invasion. The Bush Administration showed with their handling of the war in Afghanistan, just how little they understood of the notion of nation building.

Unfortunately my concerns have all proven to have been well founded. I want to clearly note that I take absolutely no joy in this. It will mean incalculable carnage for Americans, and an even greater horror for Iraqis. In fact, I suspect innocent civilians around the world will suffer at the hands of terrorists the war in Iraq inspires.

What we've seen in Iraq in the past week is simply a surge in an escalating conflict. The Bush Administration will likely react by doing what they have continued to do, avoid military engagement as much as possible with the exception of an occasional organized operation against a publicized target. Meanwhile the Iraqi insurgents will continue to gradually evolve into a more coordinated movement, much as the Vietnamese over the course of 40 years developed an organized resistance to their occupiers.

Tactics vs Strategy

Tactics: 2. finding means to end: the art of finding and implementing means to achieve particular immediate or short-term aims (MSN Encarta Dictionary)

Strategy: 2. planning in any field: a carefully devised plan of action to achieve a goal, or the art of developing or carrying out such a plan (MSN Encarta Dictionary)

I regularly attempt to delve into the point of view of those I diametrically oppose, in part to evaluate the strengths or weaknesses of their arguments, but primarily to simply see what they have to say, and whether it makes any sense.

One of the trends I've gradually started to notice is an unusual preoccupation with tactics on the part of many blog political commentators. While this tends to be true across the political spectrum it seems particularly intense among those who support both the war in Iraq and the the Bush Administration in general. They seem to have an aversion to the examination of overall strategy, particularly one that looks beyond immediate ends. Or if there is any mention of strategy it follows the bafflegab line of bringing "peace, freedom, democracy and the free market" to Iraqis and the world

I'll give some examples, followed by my comments:

In the following blog entry, the writer identifies what he sees as a silver lining in the recent upswing in violence in Iraq. While I'd recommend reading his own words, I'll summarize. He believes the attacks by Sunni insurgents in Falluja and Shia radicals in numerous cities across Iraq will give the Americans license to kill off said radicals without causing a loss of Iraqi confidence in American efforts to bring them freedom. All that will be needed is a few months of intense fighting.

Tactically this has some merit. It would seem that getting rid of an immediate enemy means less fighting when he's dead. Let's put aside for the moment that he fails to acknowledge the possibility that "mainstream" Iraqi Shia may be radicalized by American actions(the Americans will likely be engaged in urban combat, and a lot of innocent civilians will be killed), that too is considering things at a tactical level.

The problem for Iraq has been and will continue to be one of overall strategy, or a lack there of. The Bush Administration's current strategy is to spin events in Iraq as positively as they can while trying avoid military engagement as much as possible. Instead they seek to deploy Iraqi proxies to do the dirty work and soak up most of the violence directed at the occupation. This has led to an extreme lack of security for most Iraqis. Crime is rampant, and day-to-day life exceptionally difficult. The only exception to Americans avoiding engagement are occasional military operations with elaborate names, like the current Operation Vigilant Resolve in Falluja.

Interestingly the actions by the American led occupation remarkably mirror a tactical approach. They react to events. They set immediate goals to achieve particular ends, but appear to have no overall understanding of how the actions taken to achieve those goals fit into their overall strategy.

Another example of tactical thinking, is the following article, where the writer feels Iran exerts significant control over Shia radicals in Iraq, and that the recent Shia violence is essentially a declaration of war by Iran against the US. The presumption here being that Iran is seeking to dominate Iraq through their Iraqi Shia proxies, or at least prevent Iraq becoming a secular state that would challenge the theological rule of the Ayatollahs in Iran. Aside from the blatant nuttiness of this presumption (it doesn't take into account the ethnic difference between Iranian Persian Shia and Iraqi Arab Shia, and it underestimates the nationalist character of Iraqis in general and the Iraqi Shia in particular) again the writer considers things from a tactical perspective.

While it may seem to be in Iran's interest to either dominate or provoke anarchy in Iraq, strategically such actions are unsound. Domination of Iraq by Iran is impossible, there would be too many impediments in the way. Not only would Iraqis themselves oppose such a situation, including Iraqi Shia, but so would Turkey and probably every Arab state not to mention the Americans. Creating anarchy makes slightly more sense, until you stop to consider that again there is every possibility that a civil war in Iraq could easily draw in other regional states like Turkey, Syria and even Israel.

It would be nice to see a more strategic understanding of world events among bloggers, and other political commentators in general. In particular I would like to see a strategic understanding that takes the details of various tactical decisions into account, and how those decisions will affect an overall strategy, particularly where the war in Iraq is concerned.