As far as civil wars go, the war in Eastern Ukraine is as ugly and hateful as any. It started with a popular revolt in the republics of Lugansk and Donetsk against the removal of the Ukrainian president by popular revolt in Western Ukraine - during the Sochi Olympics. Back then unarmed civilians were standing in front of tanks and armoured personnel carriers to stop Ukrainian troops from entering their cities and towns. People took over government buildings and protested against the government in Kiev. We're a long way from those days now.
With backing from the United States, the Ukrainian government turned its army on the rebels in both Republics. In response, Russia assisted the rebels with arms, intelligence and some allege men. In any case, the popular unrest against the coup in Kiev turned into a war for the two republics independence. Shockingly, and brutally, the Ukrainian government ordered its own military forces to attack the towns and cities of Donetsk and Lugansk, and the death toll of civilians ran into the thousands. The Ukrainian government never seriously looked to negotiate with the people of Eastern Ukraine. They simply tried to put them down. That's were anger over the coup turned into pure hatred. A blood hatred. Too many lives were touched by death and destruction at the hands of their own government to ever forgive.
Today, as I write this, the guns of war have shattered what was always a shaky ceasefire known as the Minsk Accord. Minsk was always destined to failure as it never fully took into account the blood hate in Ukraine. I wrote about it back then here . The truth is neither side wants a thing to do with the other. The Ukrainian government is acting as though the people in Eastern Ukraine are trying to steal their territory, and the people who reside there have no right to self-determination. Not a very European view, which the new government there claims to be.
The Ukrainian army has been conducting a "creeping" offensive almost since Minsk was signed, but in recent days that has accelerated dramatically. They have been moving into small towns and areas that were agreed to be no man's land, or left alone by both sides. They were in the de-militarized zone that divided the two sides along the complete front lines. The forces of Donetsk and Lugansk, I call them NAF or Novorossiya Armed Forces, after the name the Lugansk and Donetsk Republics gave their new political entity (Novorossiya = New Russia), are responding to these incursions now. Massive artillery duels between the two sides have escalated dramatically. Civilian areas are being leveled once again, and Ukrainian tanks have been filmed in the "de-militarized" zone near the city of Donetsk.
It appears that a freshly rearmed Ukraine, with masses of new military recruits, is again planning on asserting itself on the two republics. That being the case, where are the guarantor nations of the Minsk Agreement? Russia, Germany and France brokered the deal, but they aren't forcing the Ukrainian government to restrain itself. In fact, they haven't been able to get Ukraine to live up to any of the required steps outlined in the Minsk Agreement. Instead, Minsk has served as a shaky truce at best - often violated over the last three years, but not to the degree it has been today.
Russia, Germany and France have the responsibility to enforce Minsk. Not just the truce aspect of Minsk, but also the structural requirements that the Ukraine government was meant to do under the agreement. While Russia would not have much influence to bring to bare on the government in Kiev, Germany and France certainly could. The United States certainly could. Instead, these governments, including my own in Canada, have turned this into a rearming and retraining exercise of the Ukrainian military - essentially treating Ukraine as a member of the NATO alliance. In other words, there has been no good faith given to the Minsk Agreement, and the sole focus has been meeting force with force.
Russia has a role to play in all this that it has refused, and that is to occupy the two republics. The Ukrainian government feels it has a free hand in attacking when and how it chooses, and most of the casualties that result are civilians. This has to stop. The only way to stop the Ukrainian government from attacking its own civilians in the republics is to place a barrier in front of them that will deliver a much more serious blow to them that they could inflict on the other side. The Russian army would and should constitute such a barrier. I say that not to wave the Russian flag, but in serious reflection on reality. Russia will not, understandably, allow foreign armies enmasse on its border. Nobody would. It would take an army to stop the two sides from killing each other. The majority of both republics either identify themselves as Russian or are Russian speakers. The Russians in these circumstances would be trusted by the people of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Russian military intervention in the republics is necessary, pragmatic, and humane. The Western world needs to come to this conclusion, and support it before all out carnage raises its ugly head there again. The stupid, outdated ideas of Russian imperialism and all that nonsense need to be put to the side. The Russian government must also wake up and smell the coffee. Russia claims to be a source of major influence in the world, and a leader in a new multi-polar world. If that is to be the case, then Russia must exert itself correspondingly if it wants to be taken seriously.
Of course, Russia itself is in the middle of a rearmament program, and in that sense it may not want to bite off more than it can chew - which in a sense is understandable. However, when mass slaughter is happening on your won border, and people of your decent are the victims of a government that shells its own people, then it is incumbent on you to act decisively. By way of example, the Turkish incursion into Syria to establish a "safe zone". Russia could, and should do the same in Donetsk and Lugansk. A safe zone that protects those people from being slaughtered at random by their own government. That isn't being imperialistic or ambitious. It is being humane and showing leadership. It is plain and obvious, that after three years of Minsk, the Ukraine government simply can't resist the temptation to put down the people of Donetsk and Lugansk by force. No further evidence is required. Russia sitting on its hands makes Russia look weak on its own border, and with its fellow Slavs. So, Mr. Putin, show the leadership a leader of the multi-polar world must, and make Donetsk and Lugansk a "safe zone" for the people that live there. Don't they deserve that much?
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Friday, February 3, 2017
Sunday, March 22, 2015
The West's Shame
There is something so bizarre, so inhumane about Western countries boycotting the parade for the 70th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Germany in World War II that I just had to write on it. Recently, the prime minister of the United Kingdom announced he will not be attending the parade. Previous to that, countries like Germany and the United States had announced the same. It's only a parade you say? No it's more than that.
The Soviet Union sacrificed 25 million people to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II. A sacrifice beyond imagination, and far, far greater than all the countries fighting Nazi Germany combined. In comparison, the Holocaust, which is rightly remembered annually, claimed the lives of six million people of the Jewish faith. These are really the two true tragedy's of World War II unleashed on the world by Nazi Germany. The stories of Soviet soldiers advancing without weapons to pickup the rifle of the next dead soldier are well known. The bloodbath of Stalingrad, the siege of Leningrad, the millions of Soviet soldiers killed and captured (only to then die in POW camps) during the early days of the German invasion, and so on, all markers of the brutality of man against his own, stand large in the history of the world. In fact, the German invasion of the Soviet Union stands as the largest military battle in the history of man.
Yet, western leaders have decided to not attend the parade that is meant to honour that sacrifice. When Britain announced it would not attend, well, that's the straw that broke the camel's back frankly. Of all the countries in the world, Britain was saved by the massive waves of young Soviet men and woman that bled the German army white. Hitler would have crushed Britain in short order if he had not diverted millions of German men to the invasion of the Soviet Union. Crucially, the diversion of aircraft, fighters and bombers, to the Soviet front saved Britain from the entire annihilation of a full blown, continuous air campaign, and the subsequent naval invasion that would certainly have occurred. In reality, the western allies left Stalin almost alone in Europe to battle the Nazi's, and take the majority of the casualties in doing so. By the time D-Day finally arrived, the German army and air force was only a shadow of it's former self as it existed in 1941. As bad and hard as it was for the allies to march east through Europe to Berlin, without the Soviet people's sacrifice, it would have never happened.
It's a place of honour in human history. To quarrel with that is to go beyond ignorance. To quarrel with that is the hateful and arrogant bastion of the very seeds that caused World War II in the first place. And now, as if history is repeating itself, Western leaders have entered that bastion of ignorance and arrogance to punish Russia for the Ukrainian civil war. By contrast, Russian president Putin, despite the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, attended the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings in France last year. He was given the proverbial cold shoulder by western leaders, yet he subjected himself to that, in honour of the sacrifice of the men of Canada, Britain and the United States. He did not ignore the history or the price in blood of that action. He honoured it. He put the sacrifice ahead of his political position, and it could even be said his personal shunning. Now that the time is here to do the same for the Soviet Union's dead, we cannot bring ourselves to do the same.
What that says about us is really quite obvious. It means we haven't learned the lessons of history. That our political leadership has become so petty, so detached from historical reality, that it attempts to rewrite the history of 25 million souls. That is the danger of all of this. Russians don't really need the West to honour their sacrifice. They know it all too well. It's the West that needs to honour that sacrifice so it can clearly see the dangers of war on a scale far more destructive than anything it experienced on the western front, or anywhere else in history. Poland started this train rolling by refusing to invite the Russian president to the Holocaust remembrance at Auschwitz last year. This despite the fact that the Soviet army liberated all of Poland, and specifically Auschwitz from German armies.
The actions of our western politicians say more about us than the Russians could ever say themselves. They have portrayed us as people who refuse to honour the dead, those that gave their lives in another time to defeat a tyrant bent on world domination, and in doing so dishonour those men and women. As the son of a young man, training in England, fighting in North Africa, Italy, Holland, and Germany through those tumultuous years of war and senseless slaughter, I recognize the Soviet sacrifice that probably saved my Dad's life. How could you not? Yet, that is exactly what our politicians are doing today. You don't have to be a lover of this country, or that country to recognize and honour grave human injustice committed on a massive scale. You just have to be humane, and subordinate your own bias in the remembrance of the fallen. Is that really so hard? Isn't that what is expected of us all? Wouldn't we expect that from our children? I've never been so ashamed of the actions of our governments than I am now with the boycott of that parade in Moscow.
The Soviet Union sacrificed 25 million people to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II. A sacrifice beyond imagination, and far, far greater than all the countries fighting Nazi Germany combined. In comparison, the Holocaust, which is rightly remembered annually, claimed the lives of six million people of the Jewish faith. These are really the two true tragedy's of World War II unleashed on the world by Nazi Germany. The stories of Soviet soldiers advancing without weapons to pickup the rifle of the next dead soldier are well known. The bloodbath of Stalingrad, the siege of Leningrad, the millions of Soviet soldiers killed and captured (only to then die in POW camps) during the early days of the German invasion, and so on, all markers of the brutality of man against his own, stand large in the history of the world. In fact, the German invasion of the Soviet Union stands as the largest military battle in the history of man.
Yet, western leaders have decided to not attend the parade that is meant to honour that sacrifice. When Britain announced it would not attend, well, that's the straw that broke the camel's back frankly. Of all the countries in the world, Britain was saved by the massive waves of young Soviet men and woman that bled the German army white. Hitler would have crushed Britain in short order if he had not diverted millions of German men to the invasion of the Soviet Union. Crucially, the diversion of aircraft, fighters and bombers, to the Soviet front saved Britain from the entire annihilation of a full blown, continuous air campaign, and the subsequent naval invasion that would certainly have occurred. In reality, the western allies left Stalin almost alone in Europe to battle the Nazi's, and take the majority of the casualties in doing so. By the time D-Day finally arrived, the German army and air force was only a shadow of it's former self as it existed in 1941. As bad and hard as it was for the allies to march east through Europe to Berlin, without the Soviet people's sacrifice, it would have never happened.
It's a place of honour in human history. To quarrel with that is to go beyond ignorance. To quarrel with that is the hateful and arrogant bastion of the very seeds that caused World War II in the first place. And now, as if history is repeating itself, Western leaders have entered that bastion of ignorance and arrogance to punish Russia for the Ukrainian civil war. By contrast, Russian president Putin, despite the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, attended the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings in France last year. He was given the proverbial cold shoulder by western leaders, yet he subjected himself to that, in honour of the sacrifice of the men of Canada, Britain and the United States. He did not ignore the history or the price in blood of that action. He honoured it. He put the sacrifice ahead of his political position, and it could even be said his personal shunning. Now that the time is here to do the same for the Soviet Union's dead, we cannot bring ourselves to do the same.
What that says about us is really quite obvious. It means we haven't learned the lessons of history. That our political leadership has become so petty, so detached from historical reality, that it attempts to rewrite the history of 25 million souls. That is the danger of all of this. Russians don't really need the West to honour their sacrifice. They know it all too well. It's the West that needs to honour that sacrifice so it can clearly see the dangers of war on a scale far more destructive than anything it experienced on the western front, or anywhere else in history. Poland started this train rolling by refusing to invite the Russian president to the Holocaust remembrance at Auschwitz last year. This despite the fact that the Soviet army liberated all of Poland, and specifically Auschwitz from German armies.
The actions of our western politicians say more about us than the Russians could ever say themselves. They have portrayed us as people who refuse to honour the dead, those that gave their lives in another time to defeat a tyrant bent on world domination, and in doing so dishonour those men and women. As the son of a young man, training in England, fighting in North Africa, Italy, Holland, and Germany through those tumultuous years of war and senseless slaughter, I recognize the Soviet sacrifice that probably saved my Dad's life. How could you not? Yet, that is exactly what our politicians are doing today. You don't have to be a lover of this country, or that country to recognize and honour grave human injustice committed on a massive scale. You just have to be humane, and subordinate your own bias in the remembrance of the fallen. Is that really so hard? Isn't that what is expected of us all? Wouldn't we expect that from our children? I've never been so ashamed of the actions of our governments than I am now with the boycott of that parade in Moscow.
Monday, March 21, 2011
China, Russia and Company and the Libyan Patsies
Remember in your school days the kids circling around for a fight? Some were coaxing the combatants on just to see a fight. Some perhaps had grudges and wanted to see the object of their disdain get bloodied. The bottom line is they were happy to have a fight as long as others did it. That brings us to the international community and Libya.
Libya is an African country, ruled by a dictator's family, and supported by tribes. There are over 140 different tribes in Libya, of which 30 are the most influential. Of those 30 tribes, two are the largest and most influential: the Beni Hilal that settled in western Libya and around Tripoli; and the Beni Salim tribe that settled in Cyrenaica, the eastern coastal region of Libya. Gaddafi's own tribe is small in relation, but has risen to prominence with his rise. Loyalties of these tribes has traditionally shifted, but centers around the allocation of patronage and powerful positions within the government and military. For example, the Lockerbie bomber belonged to the Magariha tribe, which has the longest and strongest ties to Gaddafi. His long, drawn out extradition and the celebrations on his return can be directly linked to the importance of maintaining tribal loyalties.
The current divisions in Libya geographically center around Benghazi - Misratah - Tobruk, vs. the rest of the country. The strong rebel areas contain a population of approximately 2,000,000 while the government areas represent about 4,000,000 people. The big spin has been that the "rebels" represent the Libyan people. That is questionable at best. They more likely represent certain tribal groups trying to assert themselves over other tribal groups. There is certainly no justification to call this a revolution for democracy. Libyan democracy is based in the deals made by tribal elders, and not the equality of the common citizen. To believe that democracy was at the root of this insurrection would be to completely ignore Libyan history and culture.
UN resolution 1973 calls for a no fly zone, and all necessary means to protect civilians. To protect civilians. Civilians are not people that take up arms against their own government. In Canada we call that an internal insurrection, and is one of the criteria for being charged with treason. The United States Department of Defense (DOD) defines it as "An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict." The argument could be made that the Gaddafi government is not legitimate as it was not duly elected by it's people. Of course that would ignore the fact that it has been the recognized government of Libya for over forty years.Whatever the spin you want to put on it, the "rebels" are not unarmed civilians.
That brings us to the question of why intervene. After all, most African and Middle Eastern governments are not democratic. They are all trying to militarily or otherwise influence the business of their neighbours. Within the last week Saudi Arabia, at the invitation of the King of Bahrain, militarily intervened and used violence against unarmed civilians. On the surface it does not make sense. That's where you have to look deeper.
The fact is that the African continent is a battleground. Right now there are two main players trying to conquer that continent - China and the United States. The US just set up an official African Military Command a short while ago, and placed one General Petraeus in charge of it. The Chinese have been involved in almost every country in Africa - primarily economically. Two different approaches to the same goal. The Chinese are using investment, and civilian agencies to win a hearts and minds campaign. Their approach is to show the area the benefits of doing business with them. They get involved in the health care of countries and helping them build infrastructure. Not unlike the old US approach of the 1960-70's. The US approach is: "We won the Cold War therefore we don't need to play nice and win hearts and minds anymore".
Two different approaches to the same goal - economic domination. Why then would China, and their partner Russia, not veto the no fly zone? It lies in their understanding of the West's attitudes. They realize the optics in the rest of the world of cruise missiles striking a rather defenceless African country. They know how the rest of the African continent, and Middle East will view a Western assault on another Muslim country. More importantly, they know the message it will send to all the other dictators of Africa: The West are not your friends and can't be trusted not turn on you should it suit their purposes. A powerful message when these dictators have two different partners to choose from. The Chinese are famous for minding their own business and being defensive in nature when it comes to foreign affairs. Isn't a partner that doles the cash, helps your people, and doesn't judge you better than one that will slit your throat when it suits?
As if to reinforce this thinking Putin came out today and said the Western bombardment of Libya reminded him of "the crusades". Talk about speaking to your audience. The Chinese have come out and expressed their outrage at the use of disproportionate force. Even the Arab League has expressed concern over it. The UN Secretary General was mobbed outside the Arab League headquarters today, and had to use the back door. All the Russians and Chinese had to do was veto it, but it served their purpose. They wanted the Arab/African world to see the West take out the Libyan military while doing nothing to stop the "rebels" and their tools of war. They wanted that audience to see cruise missiles, and bunker busting bombs hammering Gaddafi's personal residential compound.
The problem for President Obama is he should have listened to Secretary of Defence Gates and not Hillary Clinton. Now the US is painted with this mission whether it takes a "back seat" or not. The Arab/African world will see it for what it is and take note. In a world where the monetary balance has shifted, the US seems intent on fighting the last war. Specifically, the world is to the point where it doesn't matter how big your war machine is, you have to pay for it. The Chinese continue to grow economically and politically. They have a disciplined approach to everything - including foreign relations. The Russians are with them all the way. Even Brazil, an ally of Hugo Chavez, thumbed it's nose at the resolution as a member of the Security Council. A bigger concern for the US might be India. India also abstained from voting on the resolution. It went along with the massive Asian bloc. A place where the US is desperately trying to get in for economic and strategic reasons.
There is an old saying: "You made your bed now lay in it". The Chinese and the Russians are handing this to the West, and more specifically the US, on a platter. The message: "We are your friends and we won't judge you. You can do business with us." The West has given the opposite message. I guess that makes us the patsies.
Libya is an African country, ruled by a dictator's family, and supported by tribes. There are over 140 different tribes in Libya, of which 30 are the most influential. Of those 30 tribes, two are the largest and most influential: the Beni Hilal that settled in western Libya and around Tripoli; and the Beni Salim tribe that settled in Cyrenaica, the eastern coastal region of Libya. Gaddafi's own tribe is small in relation, but has risen to prominence with his rise. Loyalties of these tribes has traditionally shifted, but centers around the allocation of patronage and powerful positions within the government and military. For example, the Lockerbie bomber belonged to the Magariha tribe, which has the longest and strongest ties to Gaddafi. His long, drawn out extradition and the celebrations on his return can be directly linked to the importance of maintaining tribal loyalties.
The current divisions in Libya geographically center around Benghazi - Misratah - Tobruk, vs. the rest of the country. The strong rebel areas contain a population of approximately 2,000,000 while the government areas represent about 4,000,000 people. The big spin has been that the "rebels" represent the Libyan people. That is questionable at best. They more likely represent certain tribal groups trying to assert themselves over other tribal groups. There is certainly no justification to call this a revolution for democracy. Libyan democracy is based in the deals made by tribal elders, and not the equality of the common citizen. To believe that democracy was at the root of this insurrection would be to completely ignore Libyan history and culture.
UN resolution 1973 calls for a no fly zone, and all necessary means to protect civilians. To protect civilians. Civilians are not people that take up arms against their own government. In Canada we call that an internal insurrection, and is one of the criteria for being charged with treason. The United States Department of Defense (DOD) defines it as "An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict." The argument could be made that the Gaddafi government is not legitimate as it was not duly elected by it's people. Of course that would ignore the fact that it has been the recognized government of Libya for over forty years.Whatever the spin you want to put on it, the "rebels" are not unarmed civilians.
That brings us to the question of why intervene. After all, most African and Middle Eastern governments are not democratic. They are all trying to militarily or otherwise influence the business of their neighbours. Within the last week Saudi Arabia, at the invitation of the King of Bahrain, militarily intervened and used violence against unarmed civilians. On the surface it does not make sense. That's where you have to look deeper.
The fact is that the African continent is a battleground. Right now there are two main players trying to conquer that continent - China and the United States. The US just set up an official African Military Command a short while ago, and placed one General Petraeus in charge of it. The Chinese have been involved in almost every country in Africa - primarily economically. Two different approaches to the same goal. The Chinese are using investment, and civilian agencies to win a hearts and minds campaign. Their approach is to show the area the benefits of doing business with them. They get involved in the health care of countries and helping them build infrastructure. Not unlike the old US approach of the 1960-70's. The US approach is: "We won the Cold War therefore we don't need to play nice and win hearts and minds anymore".
Two different approaches to the same goal - economic domination. Why then would China, and their partner Russia, not veto the no fly zone? It lies in their understanding of the West's attitudes. They realize the optics in the rest of the world of cruise missiles striking a rather defenceless African country. They know how the rest of the African continent, and Middle East will view a Western assault on another Muslim country. More importantly, they know the message it will send to all the other dictators of Africa: The West are not your friends and can't be trusted not turn on you should it suit their purposes. A powerful message when these dictators have two different partners to choose from. The Chinese are famous for minding their own business and being defensive in nature when it comes to foreign affairs. Isn't a partner that doles the cash, helps your people, and doesn't judge you better than one that will slit your throat when it suits?
As if to reinforce this thinking Putin came out today and said the Western bombardment of Libya reminded him of "the crusades". Talk about speaking to your audience. The Chinese have come out and expressed their outrage at the use of disproportionate force. Even the Arab League has expressed concern over it. The UN Secretary General was mobbed outside the Arab League headquarters today, and had to use the back door. All the Russians and Chinese had to do was veto it, but it served their purpose. They wanted the Arab/African world to see the West take out the Libyan military while doing nothing to stop the "rebels" and their tools of war. They wanted that audience to see cruise missiles, and bunker busting bombs hammering Gaddafi's personal residential compound.
The problem for President Obama is he should have listened to Secretary of Defence Gates and not Hillary Clinton. Now the US is painted with this mission whether it takes a "back seat" or not. The Arab/African world will see it for what it is and take note. In a world where the monetary balance has shifted, the US seems intent on fighting the last war. Specifically, the world is to the point where it doesn't matter how big your war machine is, you have to pay for it. The Chinese continue to grow economically and politically. They have a disciplined approach to everything - including foreign relations. The Russians are with them all the way. Even Brazil, an ally of Hugo Chavez, thumbed it's nose at the resolution as a member of the Security Council. A bigger concern for the US might be India. India also abstained from voting on the resolution. It went along with the massive Asian bloc. A place where the US is desperately trying to get in for economic and strategic reasons.
There is an old saying: "You made your bed now lay in it". The Chinese and the Russians are handing this to the West, and more specifically the US, on a platter. The message: "We are your friends and we won't judge you. You can do business with us." The West has given the opposite message. I guess that makes us the patsies.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Prime Minister Harper, It's Time
Mark this day, the 18th day of November, 2010 on your calender and heart. Today our Premier, Danny Williams, announced a deal to develop the Lower Churchill. It was also signed by the Premier of Nova Scotia, NALCOR energy of Newfoundland and Labrador, Emera Energy, and the Innu people's representatives. A deal that will establish a power plant at Muskrat Falls, Labrador with power lines and sub-sea cables ending at North Sydney, Nova Scotia. A hybrid of private enterprise and Crown corporations. A partnership between two, and likely three, Atlantic provinces. In short, the people who live here for the people who live here. As it should be.
This is not the massive octopus that is Hydro Quebec, GDF Suez, and Enbridge. Put in another way: the Quebec government, the French government, and natural gas. You see Hydro Quebec is not just a little power company minding it's own business in northern Quebec. In reality Hydro Quebec is a huge multi-national corporation, with strategic partners that are foreign to this country, and are involved in: electrical power, natural gas distribution, banking, telecommunications, and even small water companies. Despite being prohibited from operating outside Quebec by their founding charter, Hydro Quebec owns several American power companies. They get around this by owning holding companies such as Noverco, Meg Holdings, and the list goes on. They own American companies such as Bucksport Energy (Maine), Green Mountain Power (Vermont), and Vermont Gas Systems (Vermont) among others. In the same week as Hydro Quebec made an offer to purchase New Brunswick's power utlity GDF Suez purchased a Montreal electrical company that will supply all of Hydro Quebec's power transformers up to 100 MVA. Not to mention the 800 million dollar liquified gas plant near Quebec city that GDF Suez is planning on building.
No our little deal is nothing like that. We do not have a foreign country involved in our strategic alliance. What we need is OUR federal government to come in and do the right thing. This is where you come in Mr Harper.
We expect, and when I say we expect - I mean we expect, the federal government to satisfy it's national obligations to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those obligations are: to provide the requested funding to subsidize the construction of the sub-sea cable links as per the joint provincial request for said subsidies; to provide loan guarantees for the construction of the project; and last, but NOT least, complete it's obligations under the New Dawn Agreement between the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Innu peoples of the province. This must be done without delay.
You may ask why should the federal government become involved, and why should it offer up the loan guarantees. Simple. This Province is owed atleast that. It has been living under a draconian agreement since 1969 that has taken 22 billion dollars from the economy thus far, and will take a further 75-90 billion dollars before it expires in 2041. The federal government, despite the usual separatist politics, should have stepped in years if not generations ago to right this wrong - but chose to turn a blind eye. Now the inevitable result of that policy is here. This current deal is the best case scenario for Canada now. Should the federal government not follow through, and do the right thing, I suspect Newfoundland and Labrador could be in the balance. There is such a feeling of treachery in the province that should the federal government side with Hydro Quebec (Quebec) on this issue the end result would be catastrophic and tragic.
Mr Harper, rise above the politics, rise above your connections, and do the right thing by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do it now.
This is not the massive octopus that is Hydro Quebec, GDF Suez, and Enbridge. Put in another way: the Quebec government, the French government, and natural gas. You see Hydro Quebec is not just a little power company minding it's own business in northern Quebec. In reality Hydro Quebec is a huge multi-national corporation, with strategic partners that are foreign to this country, and are involved in: electrical power, natural gas distribution, banking, telecommunications, and even small water companies. Despite being prohibited from operating outside Quebec by their founding charter, Hydro Quebec owns several American power companies. They get around this by owning holding companies such as Noverco, Meg Holdings, and the list goes on. They own American companies such as Bucksport Energy (Maine), Green Mountain Power (Vermont), and Vermont Gas Systems (Vermont) among others. In the same week as Hydro Quebec made an offer to purchase New Brunswick's power utlity GDF Suez purchased a Montreal electrical company that will supply all of Hydro Quebec's power transformers up to 100 MVA. Not to mention the 800 million dollar liquified gas plant near Quebec city that GDF Suez is planning on building.
No our little deal is nothing like that. We do not have a foreign country involved in our strategic alliance. What we need is OUR federal government to come in and do the right thing. This is where you come in Mr Harper.
We expect, and when I say we expect - I mean we expect, the federal government to satisfy it's national obligations to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those obligations are: to provide the requested funding to subsidize the construction of the sub-sea cable links as per the joint provincial request for said subsidies; to provide loan guarantees for the construction of the project; and last, but NOT least, complete it's obligations under the New Dawn Agreement between the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Innu peoples of the province. This must be done without delay.
You may ask why should the federal government become involved, and why should it offer up the loan guarantees. Simple. This Province is owed atleast that. It has been living under a draconian agreement since 1969 that has taken 22 billion dollars from the economy thus far, and will take a further 75-90 billion dollars before it expires in 2041. The federal government, despite the usual separatist politics, should have stepped in years if not generations ago to right this wrong - but chose to turn a blind eye. Now the inevitable result of that policy is here. This current deal is the best case scenario for Canada now. Should the federal government not follow through, and do the right thing, I suspect Newfoundland and Labrador could be in the balance. There is such a feeling of treachery in the province that should the federal government side with Hydro Quebec (Quebec) on this issue the end result would be catastrophic and tragic.
Mr Harper, rise above the politics, rise above your connections, and do the right thing by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do it now.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Poker Quebec Style
Throughout Canadian history the politics of Quebec have been a virtual theatre for the rest of the country. We watch the never ending charades play themselves out from decade to decade and generation to generation. It is almost like being at a perpetual state of war from the Orwellian 1984. Never is it satisfied. Never has just the right peace been achieved. Many in this country consider this type of politics to be deliberately designed to "milk the system" for all it's worth. Some say it is just a symptom of the underlying inferiority complex that seems to pervade most utterances from the government of Quebec. Yet others will argue, while not excluding the previous two points, that the government of Quebec is in a sense brainwashing it's people to believe they are constantly persecuted and wronged and therefore are entitled to separate for the good of all. In the west, some folks think it's a deliberate strategy to cause such resentment that not only would we not fight to keep Quebec, but that we would in fact be happy to see her go.
Some or all of these arguements may have an element of truth, but how do they manage it? How does the government of Quebec keep coming up with claims over this or that? What is the basis for their grievances?
Purely and simply - it's poker. They are the best political poker players in the country, and they are playing against people who for the most part don't want to offend them by calling their bluff. Often, it takes a Quebecer to call the bluff of the government of Quebec. A few instances: Prime Minister Trudeau invoking the War Measures Act and putting troops on the street in Quebec; and Prime Minister Chretien stating that if Canada can be divided then so can Quebec. That one got the separatists so riled up they proclaimed that Quebec's territory was sacred. This is the line of thought I wish to follow.
Is Quebec's territory really sacred? Based on what? While prior to the Conquest of "New France" in 1760 there was no Quebec. Quebec was formed by the British in 1763. The inhabitants were granted the use of their language and civil code. Those that did not want to accept British rule were given eighteen months to leave. That was the eternal birth of the Province of Quebec. A small strip of land running from Montreal to the large opening of the St Lawrence to the Atlantic. That was the "sacred" territory. Whatever other territory that may have had a French presence in New France was given to Britain, by France, with the exception of St Pierre and Miquelon - which remains a French possession to this day. So that part of the Treaty of Paris has been respected.
The Quebec Act of 1774 further enlarged the territory. However, losses of territory during the War of Independance and the creation of an Upper and Lower Canada again split the new territory - esentially in half. Again, the sacred territory of Quebec was decided by Britain and reduced and enlarged at will.
The modern growth of the territory of Quebec really happened in 1898 with the creation of the Quebec Boundaries Act, passed into legislation by the Parliament of Canada. A second edition of this Act was passed by Parliament in 1912. Modern day Quebec's "sacred territory" was therefore permitted by an Act of the Parliament of Canada. Remembering Prime Minister Chretien's comment on Quebec's divisibility, it is easy to see that should the Parliament of Canada decide to rescind the Quebec Boundaries Act, the entire portion of territory granted in that Act would revert back to the Crown - Government of Canada. Many argue that it is completely illegal for Quebec to separate in any case, but there is no question that a national Parliament can rescind it's own legislation.
The problem with telling a lie is that bigger and bigger lies become necessary to explain the first. To give it legitimacy. To make it historical. That brings us to another more present myth. The Old Harry oil field. Located some 80 kilometers from Quebec's Iles-de-la-Madeleine this 29 kilometre long oil/gas field is becoming central to a dispute over provincial maritime borders. Only one problem. There are no provincial maritime borders. There are no provincial maritime economic zones or maritime territorial waters. None. Another bluff by the government of Quebec. Another lie told to the people of Quebec by their government, and it's separatist opposition. The government of Quebec refuses to sign an accord with the federal government, as every other province must do, should they wish to explore for offshore oil and gas. It insists the federal government must recognize Quebec's sole jurisdiction to it's territorial waters. Of all the guff!
Then there is Quebec's arrogant assertion that it does not recognize Labrador as a part of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunatley, for Quebec, that issue was legally settled. The dispute over Labrador was between the then countries of Canada and Newfoundland. Unable to reach a compromise they submitted the dispute to the Privy Council of Great Britain for arbitration, and in 1927 it was reaffirmed by that body that Labrador belonged to Newfoundland. When Newfoundland and Labrador entered Confederation in 1949 the Terms of Confederation recognized that territorial fact. Yet the government of Quebec continues to place Labrador as part of Quebec on it's website.
Here's were the poker comes in. The very nature of a bluff is that you have nothing in your hand, yet you want others to believe you do. Here's what happens with a bluff. Your opponent folds blindly, or he calls your bluff and you must eat humble pie and lay down your cards. Despite any purported agreement on maritime boundaries for the provinces between the Maritime provinces, Quebec, and the then Leader of the Official Opposion Mr. Stanfield (1964), no such agreement could exist without a constitutional amendment or an Act of Parliament at the least. Therefore, to say this group defined the boundaries, as Quebec argues, is akin to saying some folks got together at Tim Horton's and came up with the deal. It has no legal, or even logical basis in fact. The oceans belong to Ottawa from the low tide mark out. The Supreme Court decided it. Hey Quebec, wake up! Your bluff has been called. Newfoundland is exploring for natural gas and oil at Old Harry with the permission of the federal government. It is not sawing off it's nose to spite it's face. There are no sea borders for provinces. Deal with it or lose out altogether.
The same goes for Labrador. It was stripped from France before there was a "Quebec" by force of arms. It was granted to Newfoundland by Britain. It has been recognized by the British Privy Council, the Parliament of Canada, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no debate, and your recognition of the facts is not required. I suspect that should the time ever come that Quebec hopes to separate, and I hope it never does, that the Government of Canada will call your bluff too. Afterall, should they rescind the territorial expansion act, Newfoundland and Labrador might very well inherit all of current day northern Quebec, and all it's bounty therein. Did you hear that Mr. Ducceppe? Oh sorry I forgot you are in Europe promoting and getting the world ready for Quebec's separation.
Some or all of these arguements may have an element of truth, but how do they manage it? How does the government of Quebec keep coming up with claims over this or that? What is the basis for their grievances?
Purely and simply - it's poker. They are the best political poker players in the country, and they are playing against people who for the most part don't want to offend them by calling their bluff. Often, it takes a Quebecer to call the bluff of the government of Quebec. A few instances: Prime Minister Trudeau invoking the War Measures Act and putting troops on the street in Quebec; and Prime Minister Chretien stating that if Canada can be divided then so can Quebec. That one got the separatists so riled up they proclaimed that Quebec's territory was sacred. This is the line of thought I wish to follow.
Is Quebec's territory really sacred? Based on what? While prior to the Conquest of "New France" in 1760 there was no Quebec. Quebec was formed by the British in 1763. The inhabitants were granted the use of their language and civil code. Those that did not want to accept British rule were given eighteen months to leave. That was the eternal birth of the Province of Quebec. A small strip of land running from Montreal to the large opening of the St Lawrence to the Atlantic. That was the "sacred" territory. Whatever other territory that may have had a French presence in New France was given to Britain, by France, with the exception of St Pierre and Miquelon - which remains a French possession to this day. So that part of the Treaty of Paris has been respected.
The Quebec Act of 1774 further enlarged the territory. However, losses of territory during the War of Independance and the creation of an Upper and Lower Canada again split the new territory - esentially in half. Again, the sacred territory of Quebec was decided by Britain and reduced and enlarged at will.
The modern growth of the territory of Quebec really happened in 1898 with the creation of the Quebec Boundaries Act, passed into legislation by the Parliament of Canada. A second edition of this Act was passed by Parliament in 1912. Modern day Quebec's "sacred territory" was therefore permitted by an Act of the Parliament of Canada. Remembering Prime Minister Chretien's comment on Quebec's divisibility, it is easy to see that should the Parliament of Canada decide to rescind the Quebec Boundaries Act, the entire portion of territory granted in that Act would revert back to the Crown - Government of Canada. Many argue that it is completely illegal for Quebec to separate in any case, but there is no question that a national Parliament can rescind it's own legislation.
The problem with telling a lie is that bigger and bigger lies become necessary to explain the first. To give it legitimacy. To make it historical. That brings us to another more present myth. The Old Harry oil field. Located some 80 kilometers from Quebec's Iles-de-la-Madeleine this 29 kilometre long oil/gas field is becoming central to a dispute over provincial maritime borders. Only one problem. There are no provincial maritime borders. There are no provincial maritime economic zones or maritime territorial waters. None. Another bluff by the government of Quebec. Another lie told to the people of Quebec by their government, and it's separatist opposition. The government of Quebec refuses to sign an accord with the federal government, as every other province must do, should they wish to explore for offshore oil and gas. It insists the federal government must recognize Quebec's sole jurisdiction to it's territorial waters. Of all the guff!
Then there is Quebec's arrogant assertion that it does not recognize Labrador as a part of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunatley, for Quebec, that issue was legally settled. The dispute over Labrador was between the then countries of Canada and Newfoundland. Unable to reach a compromise they submitted the dispute to the Privy Council of Great Britain for arbitration, and in 1927 it was reaffirmed by that body that Labrador belonged to Newfoundland. When Newfoundland and Labrador entered Confederation in 1949 the Terms of Confederation recognized that territorial fact. Yet the government of Quebec continues to place Labrador as part of Quebec on it's website.
Here's were the poker comes in. The very nature of a bluff is that you have nothing in your hand, yet you want others to believe you do. Here's what happens with a bluff. Your opponent folds blindly, or he calls your bluff and you must eat humble pie and lay down your cards. Despite any purported agreement on maritime boundaries for the provinces between the Maritime provinces, Quebec, and the then Leader of the Official Opposion Mr. Stanfield (1964), no such agreement could exist without a constitutional amendment or an Act of Parliament at the least. Therefore, to say this group defined the boundaries, as Quebec argues, is akin to saying some folks got together at Tim Horton's and came up with the deal. It has no legal, or even logical basis in fact. The oceans belong to Ottawa from the low tide mark out. The Supreme Court decided it. Hey Quebec, wake up! Your bluff has been called. Newfoundland is exploring for natural gas and oil at Old Harry with the permission of the federal government. It is not sawing off it's nose to spite it's face. There are no sea borders for provinces. Deal with it or lose out altogether.
The same goes for Labrador. It was stripped from France before there was a "Quebec" by force of arms. It was granted to Newfoundland by Britain. It has been recognized by the British Privy Council, the Parliament of Canada, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no debate, and your recognition of the facts is not required. I suspect that should the time ever come that Quebec hopes to separate, and I hope it never does, that the Government of Canada will call your bluff too. Afterall, should they rescind the territorial expansion act, Newfoundland and Labrador might very well inherit all of current day northern Quebec, and all it's bounty therein. Did you hear that Mr. Ducceppe? Oh sorry I forgot you are in Europe promoting and getting the world ready for Quebec's separation.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
In defence of our Premier, Danny Williams
This blog should not have to be written. The attacks against our Premier, and leader need to be answered. The big political question would be: "Why now?" Why are certain segments of our society picking now as the time to character assasinate Premier Williams? Perhaps the answer lies to the West.
Seems to me that recently our Premier made it official that Hydro Quebec (read: government of Quebec), was no longer a player in future hydro development in Newfoundland and Labrador. Coincidence? Perhaps. It does seem though that they have a lot of scores to settle with the Premier. First there is the oh so close loss in the gamble to take over New Brunswick's hydro utility, thereby permanently shutting Newfoundland and Labrador out of the hydro business. That failed. Thank God. Then there is the secret little letters going to Ottawa to try and prevent two maritime provinces from coming together and building a sub sea cable with federal help. That was exposed. Quebec's motives bare for all to see. Then there was the promise of a new and agressive approach toward Quebec on the renegotiation of the upper Churchill Contract. Finally, the declaration at the PC convention that Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia were going it alone in the Lower Churchill. Perhaps there is also the chance that France's hydro giant may lose it's bid to build a nuclear plant in New Brunswick now that a "friendly" government is in place there? That will not make them happy.
Sounds like a stretch, but is it? The remaining value on the Upper Churchill agreement for Quebec is about 73 billion dollars with zero inflation based on today's rates. The Lower Churchill will be less, but still significant. Then factor in Newfoundland and Labrador's early exploration and drilling on the disputed Old Harry site. Again billions at stake. The numbers start to get into the hundreds of billions. Is it a stretch to say that perhaps the government of Quebec, and their supporters, have launched a war of their own on Danny Williams? Do they see him as the only wall between them and Newfoundland and Labrador's resources. Is this a covert attempt to destroy the reputation of the Premier and cause some sort of "regime change?"
No? Well explain how it is that of all the politicians in Canada, our Premier is being singled out as a bully. Their is a certain premier who is refusing to respect the will of his people and is ramming an HST down their throat - despite a legal democratic challenge. Isn't he a bully? There is a certain Prime Minister that fires people out of caucus and party without legal cause. Is he a bully? There is another Premier to the west that tries to stop our province from recieving funds through a federal funding program to the detriment of our people. He must be a bully? The list goes on. So why target our Premier?
Danny Williams, a man of his own wealth, does not need politics. He did not need the publicity of politics to be known. He did not have to subject himself, and his family, to the rigour of public life. He did so soley out of his concern for the future of our Province and her people. Pure and simple. The rarest of politicians. The people love him for it, and, just as importantly, for what he and his government have achieved on their behalf. At 85% popularity Mr. Williams is in a stratosphere of his own. Perhaps he would not have such a high popularity in other provinces where personal sacrifice and monumentous achievement go unappreciated. This is Newfoundland and Labrador, and these qualities are seen and appreciated. At 85% Premier Williams has his place in history as the most popular politician in Canadian and probably North American history. That's history. Not just the last month, or the last year, that is as in history! An achievement that other politicians can only fantasize about. His place is assured not only in Newfoundland and Labrador's history, but also it's folklore. In other words, he is a folk hero to the people here.
Personally, I believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should hold a huge rally in St. John's to show support for our Premier. To send a message to those that are trying to undermine him, and what he stands for. We will not tolerate the personal attacks on our Premier. You won't influence us to turn against him. Our ties are stronger than your will to break them. Let's rally for the Premier not out of hero worship, but out of solidarity with him, and against those that are trying to divide and conquer Newfoundland and Labrador's people and their destiny.
Seems to me that recently our Premier made it official that Hydro Quebec (read: government of Quebec), was no longer a player in future hydro development in Newfoundland and Labrador. Coincidence? Perhaps. It does seem though that they have a lot of scores to settle with the Premier. First there is the oh so close loss in the gamble to take over New Brunswick's hydro utility, thereby permanently shutting Newfoundland and Labrador out of the hydro business. That failed. Thank God. Then there is the secret little letters going to Ottawa to try and prevent two maritime provinces from coming together and building a sub sea cable with federal help. That was exposed. Quebec's motives bare for all to see. Then there was the promise of a new and agressive approach toward Quebec on the renegotiation of the upper Churchill Contract. Finally, the declaration at the PC convention that Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia were going it alone in the Lower Churchill. Perhaps there is also the chance that France's hydro giant may lose it's bid to build a nuclear plant in New Brunswick now that a "friendly" government is in place there? That will not make them happy.
Sounds like a stretch, but is it? The remaining value on the Upper Churchill agreement for Quebec is about 73 billion dollars with zero inflation based on today's rates. The Lower Churchill will be less, but still significant. Then factor in Newfoundland and Labrador's early exploration and drilling on the disputed Old Harry site. Again billions at stake. The numbers start to get into the hundreds of billions. Is it a stretch to say that perhaps the government of Quebec, and their supporters, have launched a war of their own on Danny Williams? Do they see him as the only wall between them and Newfoundland and Labrador's resources. Is this a covert attempt to destroy the reputation of the Premier and cause some sort of "regime change?"
No? Well explain how it is that of all the politicians in Canada, our Premier is being singled out as a bully. Their is a certain premier who is refusing to respect the will of his people and is ramming an HST down their throat - despite a legal democratic challenge. Isn't he a bully? There is a certain Prime Minister that fires people out of caucus and party without legal cause. Is he a bully? There is another Premier to the west that tries to stop our province from recieving funds through a federal funding program to the detriment of our people. He must be a bully? The list goes on. So why target our Premier?
Danny Williams, a man of his own wealth, does not need politics. He did not need the publicity of politics to be known. He did not have to subject himself, and his family, to the rigour of public life. He did so soley out of his concern for the future of our Province and her people. Pure and simple. The rarest of politicians. The people love him for it, and, just as importantly, for what he and his government have achieved on their behalf. At 85% popularity Mr. Williams is in a stratosphere of his own. Perhaps he would not have such a high popularity in other provinces where personal sacrifice and monumentous achievement go unappreciated. This is Newfoundland and Labrador, and these qualities are seen and appreciated. At 85% Premier Williams has his place in history as the most popular politician in Canadian and probably North American history. That's history. Not just the last month, or the last year, that is as in history! An achievement that other politicians can only fantasize about. His place is assured not only in Newfoundland and Labrador's history, but also it's folklore. In other words, he is a folk hero to the people here.
Personally, I believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should hold a huge rally in St. John's to show support for our Premier. To send a message to those that are trying to undermine him, and what he stands for. We will not tolerate the personal attacks on our Premier. You won't influence us to turn against him. Our ties are stronger than your will to break them. Let's rally for the Premier not out of hero worship, but out of solidarity with him, and against those that are trying to divide and conquer Newfoundland and Labrador's people and their destiny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)