It's a big leap for a writer in the West to advocate Russian military action in the Ukrainian republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. A stretch for sure. But, there is a sound case for it.
First is the nature of the warfare being conducted in the two republics. It started as a low level, small unit-type internal insurrection. However, after the Ukraine army was unable to take Slavyansk with this type of action, it switched to larger and larger caliber weapons - including aircraft and helicopter gunships. To make a long story short, the Ukraine army drove the separatist forces almost to the Russian border before they were defeated and forced to retreat to the approximate lines that they occupy today.
The problem with the Ukraine war is that it is essentially World War II type warfare without the air power. That essentially makes it like World War I warfare. A battle of attrition. Massive artillery replacing air power. Massive destruction and civilian casualties. Long bloody battles for meters that often get overturned by pointless counter attacks. No decisive battles or maneuvering. Just one layer of defence after another eating men and machines. A gristly affair that has no end other than internal political revolt or foreign intervention. It's the latter I suggest is necessary
Someone has to intervene militarily in this conflict to tear apart the two sides who have a blood lust for each other. Pure hatred that cannot be cured, and that must be dealt with by equally deadly force. Given that the conflict is happening on the border with Russia it is only logical that Russia should be the force to intervene.
One approach would be for Russia to declare a "hostilities free zone" in the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. To back that declaration, Russia should position a large enough force to be militarily convincing on its border. Then, as a second step, Russia should impose air superiority over the area, engaging any artillery, from either side, that violates the hostilities free zone. Then, as the third step, Russia should move its ground forces into the two republics. Ukraine military units would be required to vacate the two republics. If they refused they would be engaged and neutralized. Separatist forces would be required to marshal their men and equipment at certain points within the republics. If they refused, a similar fate would await them as Ukrainian units that failed to comply.
Once the forces are separated, and order is restored, the international community would hold a referendum in the two republics to determine if they wish to remain in Ukraine or become their own country, or a part of Russia, or any combination thereof.
It's called peace-making, not peace-keeping. There is no other country better positioned to do it than Russia. There is no country with a greater interest, other than Ukraine itself, in the restoration of peace and order in Donetsk and Lugansk. Additionally, as a responsible member of the international community, it is Russia's responsibility to bring an end to the war crimes being conducted by both sides, although more so by Ukraine forces, in Donetsk and Lugansk. Russia doesn't need anyone's permission to do this. Fact is, if it tried to get that permission it wouldn't be granted, and the bloody conflict will continue to consume tens of thousands of lives. It's real politik for a real situation. The West should butt out, and in effect mind its own business. The current situation comes as a direct result of the West interfering in Ukraine affairs to begin with. If you believe that the overthrow of the previous Ukraine president was just a spontaneous combustion of patriotic fervor, well, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Simply isn't true.
It's time to stop the insanity in Ukraine by peace-making. The geo-politics means the cleanup job is Russia's responsibility. Hopefully, that will mean less civilians, especially the children, will die in a modern day "Mad Max" war in Ukraine.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Liberal Tory Same Old Story?
Bill 42 is Dwight Ball's fault. There is no nice way of getting around it, so it might as well be said. It was his idea to eliminate 8 of the province's 48 seats - or 17% of our representation. Why? The reason given originally was it was good for our democracy. How? No answer was given to that obvious question. Then the governing PC's grabbed a hold of the idea moving legislation (Bill 42) to redistribute the electoral boundaries by 10 seats before the next election, which must be called by November of this year. The NDP screamed blue murder that the whole thing was unnecessary, and rushed to the point of being perverted. This time the NDP are right.
To start with, Bill 42 is a lot like Bill 29. You could say they're sister bills aimed at attacking democratic values in the province. Bill 29 took aim at the information that would be allowed to be released to the public. The media and opposition, including the Liberals, were incensed by it - that got the public stirred up as well. There was a great 4 day filibuster, but in the end it was passed. People hated it, and it became a death stone firmly strapped around the Tory's necks. Now Bill 42 aims to reduce representation in the House of Assembly. A further stripping away of democratic protection from a government that has been reviled for secrecy and subsequently unanimously distrusted. However, in Bill 42 the PC's had a partner - Dwight Ball and the Liberal opposition.
On a political level, the Tory's made Ball an offer he couldn't refuse. After all, it was he that championed the idea in the first place. Given that Ball couldn't say it was a bad idea, the Liberals wrapped themselves around suggestions the bill was aimed at delaying the election til 2016, and that Labrador should retain all of its 4 seats no matter what. The result, however, is as if the Liberals would have gone to bed with the Tories on Bill 29. The entire issue has stained the Liberals badly - not the least of which would be their reputation in rural Newfoundland. By insisting Labrador keep all its seats, and knowing the Avalon would not lose any of its seats, the Liberals condemned rural Newfoundland to take the entire hit of the seat reduction - or almost 50% of its elected MHAs. By crossing this rubicon the Liberals managed to lose what is normally lost during governing years - the moral high ground. Gone are the days of standing for democracy during Bill 29. In are the days of the dark of the night backroom deal to knife rural Newfoundland in the back.
On the legal level, both the Tories and Liberals are in some serious trouble. By insisting that Labrador keep its seats to avoid the perception it was being dealt an unfair hand, and thereby avoid fanning the already fanned separatist flames in the "Big Land", the Liberal and Tories pushed their "democratic reform" into the unconstitutional realm. The Supreme Court of Canada Reference on Electoral Boundaries , 1991, is the benchmark decision that restricts electoral boundary changes so that "effective representation" remains in place. The decision makes the following findings:
" Relative parity of voting power is a prime condition of effective representation."
"Under the Charter, deviations are subjected to judicial scrutiny and must not be such as to deprive voters of fair and effective representation."
"Equally important, each vote must be relatively equal to every other vote; there cannot be wide variations in population size "
"Once an independent boundaries commission is established, it is incumbent on the legislature to ensure that the Commission was able to fulfill its mandate freely and without unnecessary interference. "
"If the right to vote is to be of true significance to the individual voter, each person's vote should, subject only to reasonable variations for geographic and community interests, be as nearly as possible equal to the vote of any other voter residing in any other constituency. Any significant diminution of the right to relative equality of voting power can only lead to voter frustration and to a lack of confidence in the electoral process."
" It emerges therefore that deviations from absolute voter parity may be justified on the grounds of practical impossibility or the provision of more effective representation. Beyond this, dilution of one citizen's vote as compared with another's should not be countenanced. I adhere to the proposition asserted in Dixon,supra, at p. 414, that "only those deviations should be admitted which can be justified on the ground that they contribute to better government of the populace as a whole, giving due weight to regional issues within the populace and geographic factors within the territory governed."
Essentially, the Court found that it is constitutional to have variances between different districts in population, but that variation had to be minimal - somewhere between 10-25%. However, in the case of Labrador, it will retain all four seats with a population in the 26,000 range. That means approximately 6000 people per district. The PC's and Liberals want a population base for the other districts, including the rural districts of the Island, of about 13,000 people. That is almost a 100% difference. Nowhere in the Court's decision did a 100%, or even something close to it, population difference in districts approach being fair and effective representation. Bottom line, no real good reasons were given for Labrador to keep all its seats while rural Newfoundland loses 50% of its seats. It was a political deal made for expediency, not a constitutionally thought through decision.
This of course leaves the government wide open to a constitutional challenge of the boundaries commission decision based on the four seats made safe for Labrador. Rural Newfoundland needs and deserves as much legislative protection and representation as Labrador. In fact, it may need it more. Rural Newfoundland is under constant attack by natural economic forces, demographic forces, and as we can see here, political forces. We have become accustom to assaults on our democracy, and general ignoring of rural Newfoundland's problems with the PC government. Most of us weren't expecting to be stabbed in the back by the Liberals before they even reached power. This stings. It smells. It has the stench of "Liberal Tory same old story". I've been hearing that for months now from people. Now I've seen it first hand. One thing is certain, the Liberals under Ball, and the Tories are in agreement on the respect due rural Newfoundland. Just don't come to the door saying you are looking out for us.
To start with, Bill 42 is a lot like Bill 29. You could say they're sister bills aimed at attacking democratic values in the province. Bill 29 took aim at the information that would be allowed to be released to the public. The media and opposition, including the Liberals, were incensed by it - that got the public stirred up as well. There was a great 4 day filibuster, but in the end it was passed. People hated it, and it became a death stone firmly strapped around the Tory's necks. Now Bill 42 aims to reduce representation in the House of Assembly. A further stripping away of democratic protection from a government that has been reviled for secrecy and subsequently unanimously distrusted. However, in Bill 42 the PC's had a partner - Dwight Ball and the Liberal opposition.
On a political level, the Tory's made Ball an offer he couldn't refuse. After all, it was he that championed the idea in the first place. Given that Ball couldn't say it was a bad idea, the Liberals wrapped themselves around suggestions the bill was aimed at delaying the election til 2016, and that Labrador should retain all of its 4 seats no matter what. The result, however, is as if the Liberals would have gone to bed with the Tories on Bill 29. The entire issue has stained the Liberals badly - not the least of which would be their reputation in rural Newfoundland. By insisting Labrador keep all its seats, and knowing the Avalon would not lose any of its seats, the Liberals condemned rural Newfoundland to take the entire hit of the seat reduction - or almost 50% of its elected MHAs. By crossing this rubicon the Liberals managed to lose what is normally lost during governing years - the moral high ground. Gone are the days of standing for democracy during Bill 29. In are the days of the dark of the night backroom deal to knife rural Newfoundland in the back.
On the legal level, both the Tories and Liberals are in some serious trouble. By insisting that Labrador keep its seats to avoid the perception it was being dealt an unfair hand, and thereby avoid fanning the already fanned separatist flames in the "Big Land", the Liberal and Tories pushed their "democratic reform" into the unconstitutional realm. The Supreme Court of Canada Reference on Electoral Boundaries , 1991, is the benchmark decision that restricts electoral boundary changes so that "effective representation" remains in place. The decision makes the following findings:
" Relative parity of voting power is a prime condition of effective representation."
"Under the Charter, deviations are subjected to judicial scrutiny and must not be such as to deprive voters of fair and effective representation."
"Equally important, each vote must be relatively equal to every other vote; there cannot be wide variations in population size "
"Once an independent boundaries commission is established, it is incumbent on the legislature to ensure that the Commission was able to fulfill its mandate freely and without unnecessary interference. "
"If the right to vote is to be of true significance to the individual voter, each person's vote should, subject only to reasonable variations for geographic and community interests, be as nearly as possible equal to the vote of any other voter residing in any other constituency. Any significant diminution of the right to relative equality of voting power can only lead to voter frustration and to a lack of confidence in the electoral process."
" It emerges therefore that deviations from absolute voter parity may be justified on the grounds of practical impossibility or the provision of more effective representation. Beyond this, dilution of one citizen's vote as compared with another's should not be countenanced. I adhere to the proposition asserted in Dixon,supra, at p. 414, that "only those deviations should be admitted which can be justified on the ground that they contribute to better government of the populace as a whole, giving due weight to regional issues within the populace and geographic factors within the territory governed."
Essentially, the Court found that it is constitutional to have variances between different districts in population, but that variation had to be minimal - somewhere between 10-25%. However, in the case of Labrador, it will retain all four seats with a population in the 26,000 range. That means approximately 6000 people per district. The PC's and Liberals want a population base for the other districts, including the rural districts of the Island, of about 13,000 people. That is almost a 100% difference. Nowhere in the Court's decision did a 100%, or even something close to it, population difference in districts approach being fair and effective representation. Bottom line, no real good reasons were given for Labrador to keep all its seats while rural Newfoundland loses 50% of its seats. It was a political deal made for expediency, not a constitutionally thought through decision.
This of course leaves the government wide open to a constitutional challenge of the boundaries commission decision based on the four seats made safe for Labrador. Rural Newfoundland needs and deserves as much legislative protection and representation as Labrador. In fact, it may need it more. Rural Newfoundland is under constant attack by natural economic forces, demographic forces, and as we can see here, political forces. We have become accustom to assaults on our democracy, and general ignoring of rural Newfoundland's problems with the PC government. Most of us weren't expecting to be stabbed in the back by the Liberals before they even reached power. This stings. It smells. It has the stench of "Liberal Tory same old story". I've been hearing that for months now from people. Now I've seen it first hand. One thing is certain, the Liberals under Ball, and the Tories are in agreement on the respect due rural Newfoundland. Just don't come to the door saying you are looking out for us.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
The World needs Respect
Jesus said all we need is love. Love thy neighbor. Turn the other cheek. We clearly are not even close to that standard - sadly. However, we could at the very least respect our differences. Our right to be different. Our responsibility to be respectful to each other.
Yesterday three men massacred the staff of "Charlie" magazine in France. Two policemen were also executed. All people who had the right to live, be respected, and be loved by their families and friends. Yet, those rights weren't respected. A group of "orthodox or hard-line" Muslims seems to believe the staff at Charlie, and the two police officers, forfeited the right to live and love and be loved by publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad. Islamic law, as practiced mostly in history, required those that insult the prophet to be executed. Some countries still use it - Saudi Arabia for example.
The problem for these Muslims is that the citizens they are executing are not from or in their countries. They live in a different society, with different values, and expectations. "Freedom of the Press", although it is not always that free in the West, is a key cornerstone in our democratic societies. In strictly Muslim countries it is not seen the same way. Yet, we expect them to see it our way, not theirs. They expect us to see it their way, not ours. There is no middle ground, because neither side respect the values of the other. We constantly berate Muslims for everything from multi-marriages, child brides, cloaked women, male-only education, female driving bans, etc. Basically, we want to change everything about them when it comes to what they believe in. Their values repulse us. We cannot bring ourselves to accept them and their societies for what they are.
They feel the same way. They can't stand how we live, how women have freedom, etc. It goes against everything they believe in. A woman in a swim suit is as offensive to them, as a cloaked woman there is to us. Just for different reasons.
That begs the question: Are we living in the modern version of the "Crusades"? Are we carrying the "white man's burden" of the Kipling world? Or are they trying to revive the times of Timur? Or is it both? Either way, the result is the same: hatred; and death.
The truth is, for all of us to survive, enjoy peace, love and be loved, we must respect each others positions. We must. Our "national interests" have to be shelved, and our "mutual interests" must replace them. We can live beside, or with each other without trying to impose our will on each other. To achieve that, we must respect each other's right to a perspective, the legitimacy of that perspective to the other party, and not violate it - especially arrogantly so. Might isn't always right. History has a way of showing those that were mighty always fall. Was it Jesus that said: "live by the sword, die by the sword"? I think so. If we cannot agree to respect the views of the opposing sides, whether Russian, Chinese, American, British, Muslim, Christian, then we are doomed to reap the ugly rewards of such attitudes. Paris yesterday is the latest example. There were many before, and there will be many after, until we learn...
Yesterday three men massacred the staff of "Charlie" magazine in France. Two policemen were also executed. All people who had the right to live, be respected, and be loved by their families and friends. Yet, those rights weren't respected. A group of "orthodox or hard-line" Muslims seems to believe the staff at Charlie, and the two police officers, forfeited the right to live and love and be loved by publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad. Islamic law, as practiced mostly in history, required those that insult the prophet to be executed. Some countries still use it - Saudi Arabia for example.
The problem for these Muslims is that the citizens they are executing are not from or in their countries. They live in a different society, with different values, and expectations. "Freedom of the Press", although it is not always that free in the West, is a key cornerstone in our democratic societies. In strictly Muslim countries it is not seen the same way. Yet, we expect them to see it our way, not theirs. They expect us to see it their way, not ours. There is no middle ground, because neither side respect the values of the other. We constantly berate Muslims for everything from multi-marriages, child brides, cloaked women, male-only education, female driving bans, etc. Basically, we want to change everything about them when it comes to what they believe in. Their values repulse us. We cannot bring ourselves to accept them and their societies for what they are.
They feel the same way. They can't stand how we live, how women have freedom, etc. It goes against everything they believe in. A woman in a swim suit is as offensive to them, as a cloaked woman there is to us. Just for different reasons.
That begs the question: Are we living in the modern version of the "Crusades"? Are we carrying the "white man's burden" of the Kipling world? Or are they trying to revive the times of Timur? Or is it both? Either way, the result is the same: hatred; and death.
The truth is, for all of us to survive, enjoy peace, love and be loved, we must respect each others positions. We must. Our "national interests" have to be shelved, and our "mutual interests" must replace them. We can live beside, or with each other without trying to impose our will on each other. To achieve that, we must respect each other's right to a perspective, the legitimacy of that perspective to the other party, and not violate it - especially arrogantly so. Might isn't always right. History has a way of showing those that were mighty always fall. Was it Jesus that said: "live by the sword, die by the sword"? I think so. If we cannot agree to respect the views of the opposing sides, whether Russian, Chinese, American, British, Muslim, Christian, then we are doomed to reap the ugly rewards of such attitudes. Paris yesterday is the latest example. There were many before, and there will be many after, until we learn...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)