The Middle East is a complicated place in some ways, but it is understandable. It's firstly about religion. Secondly, it's about power. Then it's about money. In that order. Often I hear people discuss the Middle East as if it was "all about oil", but that is very naive and simplistic. Then I hear people say "well they've been killing themselves since history began". Well, that may be true somewhat, but so have people in the rest of the world. Also, oil has only been a factor for 100 years. What about the rest of history?
The key to understanding the Middle East is realizing everything in the Middle East is anchored in religion. In the Arab sense that means either Shia or Sunni branches of Islam. From the same beginnings, but divided in history, and at war ever since. Throughout most of recent history, western powers of one kind or another have attempted to impose order on these divisions by imposing "countries" on them, with strong dictatorships to keep those two branches in some sort of working order. The cruelty necessary to do so was never at question, only the result. Order no matter what. That became increasingly necessary after oil was discovered.
The "deal" if you will was blown apart by George W. Bush in Desert Storm II when he invaded and conquered Iraq. Essentially, he let the genie out of the bottle. When his father forced Hussien out of Kuwait, he stopped the invasion before toppling Hussien. As an ex-director of the CIA, Bush senior knew that Hussien was all that held Iraq together, and giving the people there democracy was akin to lighting the house on fire. His son chose differently.
What happened in Iraq was as predictable as the sun rising and setting. The majority Shia won the elections. The minority Sunni, who had controlled Iraq via Hussien, turned on the Americans causing them 4000 plus deaths. The Shia hated the US even more than the Sunnis and happily watched and assisted as the US became embroiled. It wasn't until the US decided to buy off the Sunnis, literally, by paying insurgents a salary via "awakening" councils, that the heat went off them in Iraq. But, it never went out between the Sunnis and Shia. In fact, it opened the door for Shia Iran next door to gain vast influence in Iraq that it never had before.
The US invasion also had the affect of driving Iran (Shia) and Saudi Arabia (Sunni) into the fore front. Since that time, the two have been engaged in a not so covert war to dominate the region for their religious branch. Not for oil, but rather for the bragging rights that their half of the Muslim religion was righteous, and prevailed over the other... as was destined. Both countries have massively armed themselves. One fed by the US (Saudi) and the other by its own industry and Russia (Shia). Iran supported groups in the region that supported the Shia like Hezbollah, etc. Saudi supported the other side. Same goes for every "country" in the Middle East. I use quotations on country, because countries are a mainly European/Western imposition on the area. The Middle East is better described as Tribes. That is their nature, their history, and their loyalty - even today.
The US added some gas to the fire when it and NATO, by abusing the UN enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in Libya, toppled another dictator and opened the area to religious tribalism. The same can be said for the covert, not at the time overt, US involvement supporting anti-Assad rebels in Syria. Assad equals Shia (Iran) and the rebels including ISIS equal the Sunni (Saudi). What the US has been doing is undoing the system of order and control it either helped or unilaterally imposed on the religious tribes of the Middle East. In other words, it is hauling truckloads of the driest wood you can find, soaking it in petrol, and throwing the flame on top. A rather curious dance of creating the conditions for competing extremism, and then deeming itself to be at war with it.
The latest Middle East "country" to implode on the US is Yemen. Situated at the mouth of the Gulf, Yemen is very geo-politically important. The Houthis have taken power there after overthrowing, you guessed it, the Saudi (Sunni) dictatorship. The Houthis are of the Zaidi branch of, you guessed it, Shia. As I write this post, the United Nations security Council has been called to a meeting to discuss the Houthis takeover of Yemen. Simultaneously, the US has just announced it is sending 4000 plus troops to its base in Kuwait. Whatever happens, you can be sure that either Saudi Arabia, or the US, or both will invade Yemen at any time now. And so it goes.
What is at fault for all the chaos in the Middle East? That depends on how you rationalize it. However, there are some truths that remain so no matter the rationalization. The Middle east is a land of tribes that hold their religion, Shia, Sunni, or Jewish, more dear than any other thing. It is who they are, and it is the source for all they are - including politics. Values there are not based on democracy, or any kind of "free society". For them, in many ways, democracy and freedom are counter to what is expected of them by their religions. Human freedom, if followed to its logical conclusion, would go against the teachings of the Koran, and that is as offensive to them as watching people be decapitated is to us. But, the US and other Western nations never seem to learn that lesson. Our governments continue to try and impose the "white man's burden" on them. Even though it has no chance of ever succeeding. We stir the pot, and then cry foul that the pot never ceases to stop boiling.
Now, though, the US has raised the heat in the Middle East so drastically that the ominous tales of Armageddon come to mind. The bear vs the eagle. The great war in the Middle East that consumes millions. Scary stuff. Very scary stuff. But ask yourself: what is the logical conclusion to the fires burning in Syria, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and now Yemen? It has to all be going somewhere - such is the nature of our human condition. So where? The Shia and the Sunni aren't going to happily toddle off to their particular corners and allow one side or the other to freely reign over them, The US, Russia, China, etc are not about to walk away and leave what they perceive to be their pawns toppled from the board. Where are all of these competing interests leading us? To one big explosion of violence or to one big reconciliation? If the US government wasn't the "power" on earth that they seem to be, I would say we have a chance of creating some sort of respectful co-existence in the Middle East. Whether that be by attrition or agreement. However, if the US remains free to dance in the china shop, well, let's just say people should start reading their Bibles' story of Armageddon. It's a story about lighting the Middle East on fire.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Minsk 2.0 Bound for Failure
Two hours ago the powers of Europe and Russia, along with Ukraine and representatives of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics, signed a new "peace deal" in Minsk. Problem is...it's not new. In fact, it's a regurgitated version of the first one that failed so miserably. Here's why the first one failed and the second one will as well.
1. The war in Ukraine has been witness to war crimes enmasse. Thousands of civilians have been slaughtered by the Ukraine army, and many more thousands have been maimed for life. During the first few months of the war, a deal like Minsk may have worked. After a year of the national government turning the guns of war against "its own" cities and villages the blood and destruction is far too great. Then there are the thousands of dead and wounded troops on either side. And their families. Are they supposed to submit to an agreement that allows the Ukrainian government to rule over them once more after such massive human rights abuses?
Almost as astonishing, the new Minsk deal calls for those who were responsible for these crimes against humanity to be pardoned from prosecution. An action that leaves human spirit betrayed. It defies the basic tenets of justice in the most vile way. A politically expedient hand shake that washes the blood of tens of thousands from the hands of those responsible.
2. The agreement ignores the referendums held by the people of Donetsk and Luhansk. It effectively ignores their democratic wish to be separate from Ukraine. That type of expression of will cannot be washed away with the stroke of a pen. It remains in the hearts and minds of the people. It was an expression of their will. A will that has been tossed to the wind again for political expediency. A betrayal of their collective hopes and aspirations.
3. Ukraine retakes its border with Russia effectively leaving the people of Novorossyia trapped and separated from their "guarantor" Russia. That leaves the door open for Ukraine to reverse all the battlefield losses they have suffered in the last year, and free to implement their will against the people of Donetsk and Luhansk.
4. The provisions for decentralization of powers and "special status" for Donetsk and Luhansk are left meaningless as Ukraine President Poroshenko so blatantly showed by declaring Ukraine will not federalize at a press conference held before he even left the venue of the talks. In other words, a meaningless promise.
5. Disarming of the military forces of Donetsk and Luhansk. The only real guarantor of security, safety, and defender of the will of the people of Donetsk and Luhansk. In other words, the very army that has been shelling their cities and villages will now be patrolling their streets. In other words, they will become occupied by their oppressors. Distasteful to any person with a shred of human dignity and pride.
The list goes on and on. Minsk 2.0 is nothing but a shallow, "diplomatic" attempt to appease the interests of Russia and Ukraine while ignoring those central to the equation: the people of Luhansk and Donetsk. A betrayal. An insult. Such an agreement can never have a long shelf life. It is doomed to failure because it ignores the human will and its need to see "justice done". Such an agreement leaves the wounds of war to fester and breeds deep routed hatred and resentment. It is not honourable and it is not practical. It is but a grand gesture, in a grand hall, that disrespects honour, sacrifice, and the human will to be free of one's oppressor. Shame on all involved.
1. The war in Ukraine has been witness to war crimes enmasse. Thousands of civilians have been slaughtered by the Ukraine army, and many more thousands have been maimed for life. During the first few months of the war, a deal like Minsk may have worked. After a year of the national government turning the guns of war against "its own" cities and villages the blood and destruction is far too great. Then there are the thousands of dead and wounded troops on either side. And their families. Are they supposed to submit to an agreement that allows the Ukrainian government to rule over them once more after such massive human rights abuses?
Almost as astonishing, the new Minsk deal calls for those who were responsible for these crimes against humanity to be pardoned from prosecution. An action that leaves human spirit betrayed. It defies the basic tenets of justice in the most vile way. A politically expedient hand shake that washes the blood of tens of thousands from the hands of those responsible.
2. The agreement ignores the referendums held by the people of Donetsk and Luhansk. It effectively ignores their democratic wish to be separate from Ukraine. That type of expression of will cannot be washed away with the stroke of a pen. It remains in the hearts and minds of the people. It was an expression of their will. A will that has been tossed to the wind again for political expediency. A betrayal of their collective hopes and aspirations.
3. Ukraine retakes its border with Russia effectively leaving the people of Novorossyia trapped and separated from their "guarantor" Russia. That leaves the door open for Ukraine to reverse all the battlefield losses they have suffered in the last year, and free to implement their will against the people of Donetsk and Luhansk.
4. The provisions for decentralization of powers and "special status" for Donetsk and Luhansk are left meaningless as Ukraine President Poroshenko so blatantly showed by declaring Ukraine will not federalize at a press conference held before he even left the venue of the talks. In other words, a meaningless promise.
5. Disarming of the military forces of Donetsk and Luhansk. The only real guarantor of security, safety, and defender of the will of the people of Donetsk and Luhansk. In other words, the very army that has been shelling their cities and villages will now be patrolling their streets. In other words, they will become occupied by their oppressors. Distasteful to any person with a shred of human dignity and pride.
The list goes on and on. Minsk 2.0 is nothing but a shallow, "diplomatic" attempt to appease the interests of Russia and Ukraine while ignoring those central to the equation: the people of Luhansk and Donetsk. A betrayal. An insult. Such an agreement can never have a long shelf life. It is doomed to failure because it ignores the human will and its need to see "justice done". Such an agreement leaves the wounds of war to fester and breeds deep routed hatred and resentment. It is not honourable and it is not practical. It is but a grand gesture, in a grand hall, that disrespects honour, sacrifice, and the human will to be free of one's oppressor. Shame on all involved.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Minsk is Dead
On September 5, 2014, after six months of fighting, the powers in Europe drew up the Minsk Agreement with Russia to end fighting in the Ukraine. The plan had 12 points primarily centered around stopping the fighting, with some ink devoted to a special status for Donetsk and Luhansk within Ukraine and some economic investment to spur the republics economies. Looking back on the Minsk Agreement now, well, it seems pretty hollow.
Depending on which casualty reports you want to believe, there have been between 5-15,000 people killed in the conflict and ten times that wounded or maimed. A majority of those are civilians. The majority of those civilians killed and wounded were at the hands of Ukraine army artillery - multiple rocket artillery (GRAD) to be exact. In fact the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk have suffered indiscriminate shelling for close to a year now. Before that it was Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, Artemivsk, Gorlovka and so on. It wasn't until fairly recently that the separatist forces (NAF) got a hold of GRAD systems in any significant numbers. Now they are pounding cities too around the Debaltsevo pocket east of Gorlovka.
In short, far too much blood has been spilled too subject the people of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics to the authority of Ukraine. That time has come and gone, and any agreement that even hints at that will be worth less than the paper it's written on.
The practical implications of allowing Ukraine to rule the two republics again speak for themselves. The Ukraine army has destroyed vast areas of the republics with primarily artillery. Bridges have been blown, water and sewer plants destroyed, electrical grids damaged, hospitals and schools destroyed, and so on. The bill to replace this mass of infrastructure alone is in the tens of billions. Ukraine doesn't have the money to fix what it has ruined. As we speak it is weeks away from a possible default, but even if that doesn't happen, the Ukraine financial position is at best Greek-like. In fact, in the last year Ukraine's currency has lost about 65% of its value. There is no up side here. So how could Ukraine rule Donetsk and Luhansk again in any case? They would be left in abstract poverty and decline for decades at least.
Many nations are formed in blood - actually most. Donetsk and Luhansk are no different, albeit they remain pawns in a larger game of geo-politics - each side spurring on their choice in one way or another. How can the woman whose man has been killed in battle by the Ukraine army live under its flag? How can the man in the NAF maimed by war do the same? How about the civilians with now tortured minds from being under shelling far too long, or seeing far too much death and destruction, ever stand and sing the Ukraine national anthem. These are not matters of geo-politics. These are matters of humanity.
As the leaders of France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia gather in Minsk to ink the latest deal on Donetsk and Luhansk they need to realize the people of Donetsk and Luhansk cannot be forcefully or diplomatically reunified with Ukraine. If that is to happen in any way it must be by the will of the people of the two republics, and that can only happen by referendum - UN supervised referendum. Demarcations lines from this town or that town are also meaningless. They do nothing but "freeze" the conflict. The only real and meaningful lines that matter are the boundaries of the republics. Those should be respected, and those must be the only demarcation lines implemented.
The Ukraine government may not like it, but it gave up the right to deal with a free hand in Donetsk and Luhansk when it turned the guns of war on what was essentially a separatist revolt. Live by the sword, die by the sword. The water has been poisoned. The dye is cast. Minsk is dead. Minsk 2.0 must reflect reality and NOT the whims of fanciful politicians smitten with the idea of territorial integrity.
Depending on which casualty reports you want to believe, there have been between 5-15,000 people killed in the conflict and ten times that wounded or maimed. A majority of those are civilians. The majority of those civilians killed and wounded were at the hands of Ukraine army artillery - multiple rocket artillery (GRAD) to be exact. In fact the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk have suffered indiscriminate shelling for close to a year now. Before that it was Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, Artemivsk, Gorlovka and so on. It wasn't until fairly recently that the separatist forces (NAF) got a hold of GRAD systems in any significant numbers. Now they are pounding cities too around the Debaltsevo pocket east of Gorlovka.
In short, far too much blood has been spilled too subject the people of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics to the authority of Ukraine. That time has come and gone, and any agreement that even hints at that will be worth less than the paper it's written on.
The practical implications of allowing Ukraine to rule the two republics again speak for themselves. The Ukraine army has destroyed vast areas of the republics with primarily artillery. Bridges have been blown, water and sewer plants destroyed, electrical grids damaged, hospitals and schools destroyed, and so on. The bill to replace this mass of infrastructure alone is in the tens of billions. Ukraine doesn't have the money to fix what it has ruined. As we speak it is weeks away from a possible default, but even if that doesn't happen, the Ukraine financial position is at best Greek-like. In fact, in the last year Ukraine's currency has lost about 65% of its value. There is no up side here. So how could Ukraine rule Donetsk and Luhansk again in any case? They would be left in abstract poverty and decline for decades at least.
Many nations are formed in blood - actually most. Donetsk and Luhansk are no different, albeit they remain pawns in a larger game of geo-politics - each side spurring on their choice in one way or another. How can the woman whose man has been killed in battle by the Ukraine army live under its flag? How can the man in the NAF maimed by war do the same? How about the civilians with now tortured minds from being under shelling far too long, or seeing far too much death and destruction, ever stand and sing the Ukraine national anthem. These are not matters of geo-politics. These are matters of humanity.
As the leaders of France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia gather in Minsk to ink the latest deal on Donetsk and Luhansk they need to realize the people of Donetsk and Luhansk cannot be forcefully or diplomatically reunified with Ukraine. If that is to happen in any way it must be by the will of the people of the two republics, and that can only happen by referendum - UN supervised referendum. Demarcations lines from this town or that town are also meaningless. They do nothing but "freeze" the conflict. The only real and meaningful lines that matter are the boundaries of the republics. Those should be respected, and those must be the only demarcation lines implemented.
The Ukraine government may not like it, but it gave up the right to deal with a free hand in Donetsk and Luhansk when it turned the guns of war on what was essentially a separatist revolt. Live by the sword, die by the sword. The water has been poisoned. The dye is cast. Minsk is dead. Minsk 2.0 must reflect reality and NOT the whims of fanciful politicians smitten with the idea of territorial integrity.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
End of Days for World Order
Our world today didn't happen in the last few months, or even years. It's the natural consequence of a financial system that in many ways can be understood as a "ponzi scheme". A ponzi scheme starts with a basic assumption that wealth can be built from nothing. The first into the scheme benefit the most, and as the scheme grows the returns diminish until finally there is not enough money going in to pay out those that are owed - and it collapses. That in a nut shell is the nature and state of our world wide financial system, and thus our civilization.
Every national currency represents a "right to consume". There are limited amounts of resources the earth can produce, so the limit to consuming them is represented by currencies. Since World War II national and international economics have been driven by debt - a promise to pay currency at some point in the future for resources consumed today. In effect the promise to pay, as opposed to actually paying, has allowed nations to live far beyond what they can produce compared to what they consume. In other words, debt has fueled and allowed the ponzi scheme to continue. In other words, debt has become currency, and currency has become a tool to measure debt.
The greatest enabler of debt, and the supreme master of the ponzi scheme is without doubt the US stock market. As it goes, so goes the national banks in each country - and area banks like the European Central Bank. The killer if you will is that the stock market has become addicted to cheap debt from central banks. With that cheap debt the wheelers and dealers of the market place can leverage, buy, sell, and make currency. Without that cheap debt profits shrink and investors can't meet interest payments. Without that cheap debt the system collapses as company's earnings don't meet margins required to pay their debt obligations. In other words, there isn't enough revenue coming in to cover the interest costs of their debt, and they collapse.
This is where we are at today - on a world scale. The ponzi scheme is living out its last days. Central banks have lowered their prime borrowing rates to below 1%, and in many cases a half or quarter of that. Some call that "quantitative easing". "Easing" meaning the lessening of pressure to repay currency for debt. In other words, staving off the inevitable pay the piper day. The logic is that the cheaper the prime rate set by central banks, the cheaper the interest rates set by banks, which allows consumers and corporations to continue consuming at an unabated pace - and therefore allowing the world economy to do the same.
However, what happens when individuals, corporations, and countries become so leveraged with debt that they can no longer borrow to finance their consumption - no matter the interest rate? That is the proverbial "tipping point". The point of no return. Very recently the Bank of Canada, and even the European Central Bank cut back their prime lending rates - in Canada's case to .75%. What happens when it goes to zero and yet can no longer spur or maintain economic growth? It has to go to zero. There is no other way. At this stage of the game debt is so high that it would take individuals, corporations and countries decades of non-borrowing to reverse the need for cheap debt. If that were to happen for even a year the world economy, led by the stock market, would collapse into depression. Hence the end of the ponzi scheme.
We are very close to that day now. Any significant event will trigger panic in the stock market and international debt markets. A major war or a default could quite likely be the trigger point. Greece for example could be that trigger point. So could Ukraine. Both are European countries so to speak, and both are members in some way of the European Economic Community. Without a massive debt infusion within a month Ukraine will financially collapse. Its currency has already collapsed. Greece has already been bailed out, and forced into that position of non-borrowing that I mentioned above would be necessary to avoid a collapse. They're in it now, and they're looking for a way out. Will they accept a kinder, gentler bailout from Russia or China? It's quite possible. Will they leave the Euro, or be forced to leave the Euro? That's even more possible.
The thing with Greece is it represents the future for us all. At some point we are all going to reach the position Greece is in. If Greece defaults on its debt the message becomes debt is not a guarantee to control consumption. And, if it can't really control consumption, or responsibility for over consuming, then in reality it is meaningless as a control mechanism. That is where we reach the trigger point. If the guarantee to pay one's debt for currency used, and goods consumed, becomes meaningless then so does the world economic order. In reality, that is what Greece represents. The geo-strategic question remains - will Russia and/or China bail out the current world economic order by bailing out Greece, or will they let Greece implode to foster their own currencies as the bench mark?
Both China and Russia have minuscule national debts compared to almost every country in the world. They are positioned to pickup the pieces of the ponzi scheme from what can only be imagined as a desperate world. How will they change the nature of economic order? What discipline will they impose on consumption and debt to ensure a similar collapse does not happen again? All this is yet to play out, but it will. That you can take to the bank.
Every national currency represents a "right to consume". There are limited amounts of resources the earth can produce, so the limit to consuming them is represented by currencies. Since World War II national and international economics have been driven by debt - a promise to pay currency at some point in the future for resources consumed today. In effect the promise to pay, as opposed to actually paying, has allowed nations to live far beyond what they can produce compared to what they consume. In other words, debt has fueled and allowed the ponzi scheme to continue. In other words, debt has become currency, and currency has become a tool to measure debt.
The greatest enabler of debt, and the supreme master of the ponzi scheme is without doubt the US stock market. As it goes, so goes the national banks in each country - and area banks like the European Central Bank. The killer if you will is that the stock market has become addicted to cheap debt from central banks. With that cheap debt the wheelers and dealers of the market place can leverage, buy, sell, and make currency. Without that cheap debt profits shrink and investors can't meet interest payments. Without that cheap debt the system collapses as company's earnings don't meet margins required to pay their debt obligations. In other words, there isn't enough revenue coming in to cover the interest costs of their debt, and they collapse.
This is where we are at today - on a world scale. The ponzi scheme is living out its last days. Central banks have lowered their prime borrowing rates to below 1%, and in many cases a half or quarter of that. Some call that "quantitative easing". "Easing" meaning the lessening of pressure to repay currency for debt. In other words, staving off the inevitable pay the piper day. The logic is that the cheaper the prime rate set by central banks, the cheaper the interest rates set by banks, which allows consumers and corporations to continue consuming at an unabated pace - and therefore allowing the world economy to do the same.
However, what happens when individuals, corporations, and countries become so leveraged with debt that they can no longer borrow to finance their consumption - no matter the interest rate? That is the proverbial "tipping point". The point of no return. Very recently the Bank of Canada, and even the European Central Bank cut back their prime lending rates - in Canada's case to .75%. What happens when it goes to zero and yet can no longer spur or maintain economic growth? It has to go to zero. There is no other way. At this stage of the game debt is so high that it would take individuals, corporations and countries decades of non-borrowing to reverse the need for cheap debt. If that were to happen for even a year the world economy, led by the stock market, would collapse into depression. Hence the end of the ponzi scheme.
We are very close to that day now. Any significant event will trigger panic in the stock market and international debt markets. A major war or a default could quite likely be the trigger point. Greece for example could be that trigger point. So could Ukraine. Both are European countries so to speak, and both are members in some way of the European Economic Community. Without a massive debt infusion within a month Ukraine will financially collapse. Its currency has already collapsed. Greece has already been bailed out, and forced into that position of non-borrowing that I mentioned above would be necessary to avoid a collapse. They're in it now, and they're looking for a way out. Will they accept a kinder, gentler bailout from Russia or China? It's quite possible. Will they leave the Euro, or be forced to leave the Euro? That's even more possible.
The thing with Greece is it represents the future for us all. At some point we are all going to reach the position Greece is in. If Greece defaults on its debt the message becomes debt is not a guarantee to control consumption. And, if it can't really control consumption, or responsibility for over consuming, then in reality it is meaningless as a control mechanism. That is where we reach the trigger point. If the guarantee to pay one's debt for currency used, and goods consumed, becomes meaningless then so does the world economic order. In reality, that is what Greece represents. The geo-strategic question remains - will Russia and/or China bail out the current world economic order by bailing out Greece, or will they let Greece implode to foster their own currencies as the bench mark?
Both China and Russia have minuscule national debts compared to almost every country in the world. They are positioned to pickup the pieces of the ponzi scheme from what can only be imagined as a desperate world. How will they change the nature of economic order? What discipline will they impose on consumption and debt to ensure a similar collapse does not happen again? All this is yet to play out, but it will. That you can take to the bank.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Why Russia should Invade Ukraine
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.
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.
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...
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Predictions for 2015 - Not a Pretty Picture
Last year my New Years predictions were for a "tumultuous, history making year". So this year I thought: "Well b'y, better be more specific."
For Newfoundland:
1. Halt of the Muskrat Falls project in the Courts.
2. Resignations of Ed Martin and Gilbert Bennet, and a large scale purging at Nalcor.
3. A Liberal government so large that it has to appoint its own members as Opposition ala Frank McKenna.
4. Large scale cuts to the civil service, and project spending.
5. A huge downturn in the economy reflected in high unemployment numbers and falling real estate prices.
6. A serious downturn in Labrador's mining, exploration, and economy as a whole.
7. Wide spread anger throughout the land.
For Canada:
1. A new Liberal dominated minority government, caused by drops of support in Ontario and BC for the Conservatives, and the NDP maintaining a strong hold in Quebec. Canadians won't trust that Trudeau is ready to run the show without the strong hand of Mulcair to keep him in check.
2. Declines of oil markets in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and here are too large to offset export gains in Ontario and Quebec, and the country enters recession.
3. Northern sovereignty is challenged by Russia, and to a lesser extent others.
4. Aboriginal rights and militancy increase dramatically over living conditions and resources.
5. Political unrest and economic decline make Canada a very unstable place to be, but then the world mirrors it.
For the World:
1. Russia and China escalate the stakes in their economic war with the US. They create formal international structures, based on the Chinese Yuan, to reduce US influence in the developing world.
2. Turkey leaves the NATO/ US sphere of influence and moves toward the Eurasian Alliance - fueled by disgust over Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and greater economic prospects with Russia and China.
3. The war in Ukraine escalates and Russia intervenes militarily. The Ukrainian government falls.
4. Europe enters a period of deflation and recession, that evolves into depression.
5. Argentina attempts to retake the Falkland Islands.
6. The United Kingdom begins the process of leaving the EU.
7. Investors in the US stock market panic over events in Europe and loss of trade markets, sell off, and cause the largest single crash of the the stock market since the 1920's.
All in all, not a very happy or positive outlook on the year 2015. Sorry for that. It's probably just as well that none of us have a crystal ball and can see the future, but, for what it's worth, this is my attempt. Seems to me that we can't avoid the economic realities that continue to unfold around us. The best we can do is try and protect our own. On the upside, every collision of history has always resulted in a better result down the line, so keep that in mind as we weather the storm that will be 2015.
For Newfoundland:
1. Halt of the Muskrat Falls project in the Courts.
2. Resignations of Ed Martin and Gilbert Bennet, and a large scale purging at Nalcor.
3. A Liberal government so large that it has to appoint its own members as Opposition ala Frank McKenna.
4. Large scale cuts to the civil service, and project spending.
5. A huge downturn in the economy reflected in high unemployment numbers and falling real estate prices.
6. A serious downturn in Labrador's mining, exploration, and economy as a whole.
7. Wide spread anger throughout the land.
For Canada:
1. A new Liberal dominated minority government, caused by drops of support in Ontario and BC for the Conservatives, and the NDP maintaining a strong hold in Quebec. Canadians won't trust that Trudeau is ready to run the show without the strong hand of Mulcair to keep him in check.
2. Declines of oil markets in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and here are too large to offset export gains in Ontario and Quebec, and the country enters recession.
3. Northern sovereignty is challenged by Russia, and to a lesser extent others.
4. Aboriginal rights and militancy increase dramatically over living conditions and resources.
5. Political unrest and economic decline make Canada a very unstable place to be, but then the world mirrors it.
For the World:
1. Russia and China escalate the stakes in their economic war with the US. They create formal international structures, based on the Chinese Yuan, to reduce US influence in the developing world.
2. Turkey leaves the NATO/ US sphere of influence and moves toward the Eurasian Alliance - fueled by disgust over Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and greater economic prospects with Russia and China.
3. The war in Ukraine escalates and Russia intervenes militarily. The Ukrainian government falls.
4. Europe enters a period of deflation and recession, that evolves into depression.
5. Argentina attempts to retake the Falkland Islands.
6. The United Kingdom begins the process of leaving the EU.
7. Investors in the US stock market panic over events in Europe and loss of trade markets, sell off, and cause the largest single crash of the the stock market since the 1920's.
All in all, not a very happy or positive outlook on the year 2015. Sorry for that. It's probably just as well that none of us have a crystal ball and can see the future, but, for what it's worth, this is my attempt. Seems to me that we can't avoid the economic realities that continue to unfold around us. The best we can do is try and protect our own. On the upside, every collision of history has always resulted in a better result down the line, so keep that in mind as we weather the storm that will be 2015.
Sunday, December 28, 2014
A Letter to the Premier
It's not often I would give advice to a PC member of this Province's government. In fact, a big part of me would be happy to see them all gone. However, that may not be good for our democracy in the long run. With the NDP flailing like near dead fish in the back of the boat, the political choices here have become uncomfortably narrow. Not only is a small or non-existent Opposition bad for the democracy of our province, it's also bad for the winning party - as Brian Mulroney found out. It's one thing to have the bragging rights to the "largest majority government ever", and quite another to satisfy all the egos that get swept in with it. Not everyone can be a cabinet minister, or parliamentary assistant, yet they all think they should.
So, in the spirit of the season, and bipartisan concern, here's a few words of advice for our erstwhile premier:
1. Drop Muskrat Falls like the dead dog it is. Use whatever excuse you want. It could be the court cases going through the system now with their impending damnation of the foolish actions of the Williams' administration. Be the bigger man. Own up to what every one else is already thinking. Put the people before your own ego. It's the ego that's killing you. Not yours specifically, but the ego hangover from the Williams' regime, the nagging egos of some of your long-time ministers, and back benchers. Be humble. Be contrite. Be honest. Stop the development for at least five years to get the Province's nightmarish financial and demographic position as righted as it can be. Do not govern with malice. Blaming Hydro-Quebec for everything is old. Everyone knows they're bastards, but nobody wants to sacrifice the Province or themselves on that alter. Stopping Muskrat Falls immediately is your only prayer.
2. Repeal Bill 29. It has come to symbolize that ego we spoke of above. The secrecy. The deception. The breach of trust. It is all the things that your government has been convicted of by the people, and for which you await sentencing. Even the press hate it, and that's never good for your business.
3. Ban corporate and union political donations. Restrict individual donations to $50.00 per person. The route of your entrapment is the dollars you take in and div out. So much so that one MLA, with uncommon courage in the legislature, commented publicly about a "stench of corruption". It's not news to us, but you could show leadership by addressing it.
4. Differentiate yourself from the past. Every time you say "our government has" you add another nail in the coffin. Guilt by association. People don't need to wonder if you are the same as the old crowd, because you tell them you are. While that kind of talk may get you a few slaps on the back by party hacks, those same hands, from those same people, will be thrusting that steel blade in your back the moment the party goes down in flames.
5. Know your limitations. You aren't super man, and there is nothing special about you. You aren't a visionary, and you don't inspire with your words. You are a retired cop who worked himself into the leadership, during an unprecedented party blood bath, and entering the kind of political hell that is not often realized by even the most deserving governments - which your's is of course. And you look that part. The glasses intended to portray a "smart premier" impression aren't going to do it for you, although it's a nice touch.
The only, and I mean the only, hope you have of saving ANY PC seats in the next election is to follow these simple words of advice. Are they difficult? Yes. But so is leadership. When Churchill's England was being bombed into oblivion, leadership was difficult. Freeing slaves in the US was difficult for Lincoln. Staring down Quebec separatists was difficult for Chretien. By way of example, the above steps are pretty tame. So, to save your party to the extent of opposition status, or perhaps even minority status, you need to show leadership on the things that matter. Not bike helmet legislation. Not this- that-or-the-other day proclamations. None of that. That only reinforces the idea that you've just "quit and stayed on". For what it's worth, in the spirit of democracy and bipartisanship, there it is. A few words of advice.
So, in the spirit of the season, and bipartisan concern, here's a few words of advice for our erstwhile premier:
1. Drop Muskrat Falls like the dead dog it is. Use whatever excuse you want. It could be the court cases going through the system now with their impending damnation of the foolish actions of the Williams' administration. Be the bigger man. Own up to what every one else is already thinking. Put the people before your own ego. It's the ego that's killing you. Not yours specifically, but the ego hangover from the Williams' regime, the nagging egos of some of your long-time ministers, and back benchers. Be humble. Be contrite. Be honest. Stop the development for at least five years to get the Province's nightmarish financial and demographic position as righted as it can be. Do not govern with malice. Blaming Hydro-Quebec for everything is old. Everyone knows they're bastards, but nobody wants to sacrifice the Province or themselves on that alter. Stopping Muskrat Falls immediately is your only prayer.
2. Repeal Bill 29. It has come to symbolize that ego we spoke of above. The secrecy. The deception. The breach of trust. It is all the things that your government has been convicted of by the people, and for which you await sentencing. Even the press hate it, and that's never good for your business.
3. Ban corporate and union political donations. Restrict individual donations to $50.00 per person. The route of your entrapment is the dollars you take in and div out. So much so that one MLA, with uncommon courage in the legislature, commented publicly about a "stench of corruption". It's not news to us, but you could show leadership by addressing it.
4. Differentiate yourself from the past. Every time you say "our government has" you add another nail in the coffin. Guilt by association. People don't need to wonder if you are the same as the old crowd, because you tell them you are. While that kind of talk may get you a few slaps on the back by party hacks, those same hands, from those same people, will be thrusting that steel blade in your back the moment the party goes down in flames.
5. Know your limitations. You aren't super man, and there is nothing special about you. You aren't a visionary, and you don't inspire with your words. You are a retired cop who worked himself into the leadership, during an unprecedented party blood bath, and entering the kind of political hell that is not often realized by even the most deserving governments - which your's is of course. And you look that part. The glasses intended to portray a "smart premier" impression aren't going to do it for you, although it's a nice touch.
The only, and I mean the only, hope you have of saving ANY PC seats in the next election is to follow these simple words of advice. Are they difficult? Yes. But so is leadership. When Churchill's England was being bombed into oblivion, leadership was difficult. Freeing slaves in the US was difficult for Lincoln. Staring down Quebec separatists was difficult for Chretien. By way of example, the above steps are pretty tame. So, to save your party to the extent of opposition status, or perhaps even minority status, you need to show leadership on the things that matter. Not bike helmet legislation. Not this- that-or-the-other day proclamations. None of that. That only reinforces the idea that you've just "quit and stayed on". For what it's worth, in the spirit of democracy and bipartisanship, there it is. A few words of advice.
Friday, December 26, 2014
Ukraine - the US is at fault
The evidence is in, and there is no question the United States government sponsored the coup that led to the ousting of Ukraine's elected President. No doubt he was unpopular Western Ukraine, where the seat of government is, and where most people did not vote for him in the previous two national elections. All that is true. However, in the "modern world order" we don't sponsor coups of elected governments. We even find it meddlesome when "unelected" dictators are overthrown by US sponsored coups. We know by history that once the dictator is overthrown, the threads of that society fall apart like shattered glass. A few current examples are Iraq and Libya - there are others.
The point is, in the "modern world order" the US should not be destabilizing and overthrowing democratically elected governments - yet it is. On the one hand, the US claims to be the moral high ground that all should emulate and is the "police force" to ensure it happens, and on the other hand it violates the moral high ground whenever its "national interest" is threatened. I put national interest in quotations as it doesn't have a strict definition. It's just whatever suits the US at the given moment in time. That one thing is the fatal character flaw of US policy - "we are just and right" when it works for us". The problem with that notion is that every moderately powered country could take the same position. The lesson the US has apparently not come to grips with is that the rules apply to it as well - perhaps more so. If you claim to be a world leader then you have to lead, and leadership is by example not convenience.
As the Sochi Olympics in Russia began, a nationalistic moment of pride for Russians as it is for every home country, trouble came to the surface in Ukraine. Not surprising I suppose considering the Saudi foreign minister's comments to Putin that if Russia gave Saudi its way in Syria, well then Saudi would make sure Russia had no problems with terrorists during the Olympics. All that did was infuriate Putin, which you could understand - essentially terrorist blackmail. And, while the terrorist situation remained well in hand during the Olympics, the Ukrainian "uprising" exploded from smoldering discontent to a demand the government join the EU. Ironically, even after agreeing to sign the agreement to establish economic relations of a sort with the EU, the Ukrainian president was still overthrown.
It was all quite clearly organized, funded, and even armed by "western entities". The US, instead of condemning the overthrow of an elected President, simply applauded along as "the people spoke". Yet, in a near identical situation erupting in Egypt, where the army slaughtered thousands of protesters in a matter a of week, the US refused to call the matter a coup - which would have cut off arms money. That's the kind of pragmatic vision that costs you the high ground and leadership. The same thing happened in Libya when NATO air forces went from a UN sanctioned mandate of a "no fly zone" to become the "rebels" air force and destroying the Libyan armed forces on the ground. Another breach of trust. Another abuse of power. Another loss of integrity.
As could be expected, Russia would not stand idly by and watch the US, and for that matter NATO, come to dominate a country right on its border. That should not be a surprise to the US given its 50 year economic boycott, and attempted invasion and naval blockading of Cuba. In fact, the US banked on it. When Russia intervened with special forces, a naval blockade of Crimea, etc the US protested that Russia would face a "cost" for its actions. The cost was to be escalating sanctions aimed at destabilizing and perhaps over throwing the Russian government - certainly at a minimum destroying its economy.
It's important to remember that the Ukraine conflict is not about Ukraine, or the fact it is on the Russian border. That is simply the means to the "end". The "end" is a direct blow to the Sino-Russo economic alliance ( mostly referred to as Eurasia). At some point in time the US had to decide whether it would accept losing its international economic superiority, or fight. There are only two ways to fight. One is an economic war. The other is a real war. Of course, the US could obey the rules of world order and accept the ascension of China, including the Russia-China-BRIC alliance. It's happening anyway. For example, India just signed a deal with Russia to build 12 nuclear reactors, and it cancelled a deal with US ally South Korea for a $1 billion minesweeper contract. The message: if you are with the US you aren't with us, and we have the money. A definitive sigh of things to come.
Meanwhile, in Ukraine, four or five ceasefires have come and gone. The Ukrainian government, funded and supplied by the US, has used the ceasefires to advance their lines in the Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. They created a massive incursion to the north of Gorlovka south toward Luhansk city and just north of the Donetsk/Krasny Luch defensive line. Not to be outdone, the Novorossyian forces have forced themselves to the eastern outskirts of Mariupol and westward of Alchevsk. Donetsk city has been mercilessly shelled by the Ukraine army, and the Novorossyian forces have taken a shaky control of most of what's left of Donetsk international airport.
There was meant to be peace talks between the two sides today in Minsk. It never happened. Instead, the Ukraine government cutoff power and rail links to Crimea. Also, just days ago, the Ukraine President stated publicly that Ukraine would apply to be part of NATO. All part of a war that isn't meant to end, and that isn't really declared for what it is. In many ways it's starting to resemble the "war of annihilation" the Nazi's waged against the then Soviet Union. Not in the sense of magnitude, yet, but in nature. There is no will on either side in Ukraine to surrender, or even submit to the other's authority. Too many people have been killed and maimed. Too many lives have been burned by the flicker of the flame fueled by hatred.
There is no peaceful end for the Ukraine situation. None. One side or the other will prevail, but Ukraine will not rest unless it retakes Luhansk and Donetsk Republics. The Russians will not allow that to happen. In two days the Russian army is supposed to roll into Donetsk and Luhansk to come between the Novorossyians and Ukrainians as peacekeepers. In reality, they are making themselves targets of opportunity for a Ukrainian government bent on revenge and well supplied by the US to do just that. All of which points toward serious escalation, and perhaps all out war. If that happens, the Russian military will destroy the Ukrainian military within a week. The only question that remains is where does it go from there. As Henry Kissinger explained in an article published today:
"Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is HOW IT ENDS, not how it begins."
What Kissinger, the US government, and many other people are not considering enough is:
"What if it's not left upto the United States to decide how it ends. What if the US loses it all?"
The point is, in the "modern world order" the US should not be destabilizing and overthrowing democratically elected governments - yet it is. On the one hand, the US claims to be the moral high ground that all should emulate and is the "police force" to ensure it happens, and on the other hand it violates the moral high ground whenever its "national interest" is threatened. I put national interest in quotations as it doesn't have a strict definition. It's just whatever suits the US at the given moment in time. That one thing is the fatal character flaw of US policy - "we are just and right" when it works for us". The problem with that notion is that every moderately powered country could take the same position. The lesson the US has apparently not come to grips with is that the rules apply to it as well - perhaps more so. If you claim to be a world leader then you have to lead, and leadership is by example not convenience.
As the Sochi Olympics in Russia began, a nationalistic moment of pride for Russians as it is for every home country, trouble came to the surface in Ukraine. Not surprising I suppose considering the Saudi foreign minister's comments to Putin that if Russia gave Saudi its way in Syria, well then Saudi would make sure Russia had no problems with terrorists during the Olympics. All that did was infuriate Putin, which you could understand - essentially terrorist blackmail. And, while the terrorist situation remained well in hand during the Olympics, the Ukrainian "uprising" exploded from smoldering discontent to a demand the government join the EU. Ironically, even after agreeing to sign the agreement to establish economic relations of a sort with the EU, the Ukrainian president was still overthrown.
It was all quite clearly organized, funded, and even armed by "western entities". The US, instead of condemning the overthrow of an elected President, simply applauded along as "the people spoke". Yet, in a near identical situation erupting in Egypt, where the army slaughtered thousands of protesters in a matter a of week, the US refused to call the matter a coup - which would have cut off arms money. That's the kind of pragmatic vision that costs you the high ground and leadership. The same thing happened in Libya when NATO air forces went from a UN sanctioned mandate of a "no fly zone" to become the "rebels" air force and destroying the Libyan armed forces on the ground. Another breach of trust. Another abuse of power. Another loss of integrity.
As could be expected, Russia would not stand idly by and watch the US, and for that matter NATO, come to dominate a country right on its border. That should not be a surprise to the US given its 50 year economic boycott, and attempted invasion and naval blockading of Cuba. In fact, the US banked on it. When Russia intervened with special forces, a naval blockade of Crimea, etc the US protested that Russia would face a "cost" for its actions. The cost was to be escalating sanctions aimed at destabilizing and perhaps over throwing the Russian government - certainly at a minimum destroying its economy.
It's important to remember that the Ukraine conflict is not about Ukraine, or the fact it is on the Russian border. That is simply the means to the "end". The "end" is a direct blow to the Sino-Russo economic alliance ( mostly referred to as Eurasia). At some point in time the US had to decide whether it would accept losing its international economic superiority, or fight. There are only two ways to fight. One is an economic war. The other is a real war. Of course, the US could obey the rules of world order and accept the ascension of China, including the Russia-China-BRIC alliance. It's happening anyway. For example, India just signed a deal with Russia to build 12 nuclear reactors, and it cancelled a deal with US ally South Korea for a $1 billion minesweeper contract. The message: if you are with the US you aren't with us, and we have the money. A definitive sigh of things to come.
Meanwhile, in Ukraine, four or five ceasefires have come and gone. The Ukrainian government, funded and supplied by the US, has used the ceasefires to advance their lines in the Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. They created a massive incursion to the north of Gorlovka south toward Luhansk city and just north of the Donetsk/Krasny Luch defensive line. Not to be outdone, the Novorossyian forces have forced themselves to the eastern outskirts of Mariupol and westward of Alchevsk. Donetsk city has been mercilessly shelled by the Ukraine army, and the Novorossyian forces have taken a shaky control of most of what's left of Donetsk international airport.
There was meant to be peace talks between the two sides today in Minsk. It never happened. Instead, the Ukraine government cutoff power and rail links to Crimea. Also, just days ago, the Ukraine President stated publicly that Ukraine would apply to be part of NATO. All part of a war that isn't meant to end, and that isn't really declared for what it is. In many ways it's starting to resemble the "war of annihilation" the Nazi's waged against the then Soviet Union. Not in the sense of magnitude, yet, but in nature. There is no will on either side in Ukraine to surrender, or even submit to the other's authority. Too many people have been killed and maimed. Too many lives have been burned by the flicker of the flame fueled by hatred.
There is no peaceful end for the Ukraine situation. None. One side or the other will prevail, but Ukraine will not rest unless it retakes Luhansk and Donetsk Republics. The Russians will not allow that to happen. In two days the Russian army is supposed to roll into Donetsk and Luhansk to come between the Novorossyians and Ukrainians as peacekeepers. In reality, they are making themselves targets of opportunity for a Ukrainian government bent on revenge and well supplied by the US to do just that. All of which points toward serious escalation, and perhaps all out war. If that happens, the Russian military will destroy the Ukrainian military within a week. The only question that remains is where does it go from there. As Henry Kissinger explained in an article published today:
"Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is HOW IT ENDS, not how it begins."
What Kissinger, the US government, and many other people are not considering enough is:
"What if it's not left upto the United States to decide how it ends. What if the US loses it all?"
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Danny Williams in Contempt
Without Prejudice
This past Tuesday I was in front of Justice Orsborn requesting a date be set to hear my application that Danny Williams' lawsuit against me for defamation be thrown out. The grounds for striking the lawsuit were that Williams accepted being named to a court house building in Corner Brook that houses the chamber of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, and through which justices of the Court rotate through as part of their duties.
Justice Orsborn, quite seriously, put an end to the Court's involvement in the matter. He stated that neither he, nor any other justice of the Trial Division would hear the case, and that he had requested Chief Justice Green of the Appeal Court appoint an Appeal Court Justice to preside over the matter. In effect, Justice Orsborn recused himself and the entire Trial Division from hearing the matter. I was surprised. Williams' lawyer was in a state of shock. Then came the big one. Orsborn continued by saying he had written former premier Marshall on the naming issue, and had decided to give counsel a copy of the letter. The Court Clerk dutifully delivered us each a copy sealed in a vanilla-type envelope.
The letter, which is below, essentially raises many of the same concerns I had over the court house naming after Williams. Kind of common sense stuff, which doesn't seem to be so common in the Government of this Province.
I made the decision to release the letter to the media, because, in my mind, it was a very real matter of public interest, and a classic example of abuse of power and position. It most importantly illustrated that the sanctity of the Courts could be violated by politics, which then brings the independence of our court system into question. This is especially true given our judges are appointed by politicians. In effect this takes on the perception that powerful politicians become judge, jury and executioner.
The story went across the country. Williams, belatedly spoke to the issue. I was almost as shocked by his response as I was of the similar theme between Justice Orsborn's commentary and my own argument.
Williams actually attacked Justice Orsborn's integrity.
Here are some samples of what he said:
" Obviously, this Chief Justice Orsborn had an issue that he had dealt with privately, unsuccessfully, and then basically through another vehicle (that would be me) decided to table it and make it public"
Now, if I was Justice Orsborn, Williams would be waking up this morning in jail. Parse the above statement. " 'This' Chief Justice Orsborn." Really? As if he is speaking down to one of the top judges in the province, like a petty little school girl. Then, in the remainder of the sentence he accuses Justice Orsborn of willfully and with malice of using his courtroom and position in a way that would be an abuse of the bench. In my way of reading, if that isn't contemptuous of the position of Justice Orsborne, and the Court, then I'm not sure what the meaning of contempt of court would be. Black's Law Dictionary defines contempt of court: Contumacy; a willful disregard of the authority of a court of justice or legislative body or disobedience of its lawful orders. Contempt of court is committed by a person who does any act in willful contravention of its authority or dignity.
I'll go with that last one. Willful contravention of the dignity of the Court. Also, It would also seem to me that Justice Orsborn has a very strong, and likely very expensive defamation case against Williams if he wants one.
"there were other judges there and: They didn't see anything wrong with it, but obviously Chief Justice Orsborn has a different opinion. That's probably the nicest way I can put it." So now Williams, typical to form, is pitting people against people to try and win a point. The problem with this particular comment is that he's referring to Justices of the Courts. It's as if he is not conscience of the fact that Judges shouldn't be endorsing political events. It's as if he doesn't care. It's as if "hey, everyone else is doing it, so it must be right, and you must be odd man out." It's childish and it's stupid, and it's contemptuous of the positions that judges hold, and have to hold, in our society. All this from a man that purports to hold a law degree.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Law Society describes these 3 criteria for it's members:
2.1-1 A lawyer has a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all
responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public and other members of the profession
honourably and with integrity
[2] Public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal profession may
be eroded by a lawyer’s irresponsible conduct. Accordingly, a lawyer’s conduct should
reflect favourably on the legal profession, inspire the confidence, respect and trust of
clients and of the community, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
2.1-2 A lawyer has a duty to uphold the standards and reputation of the legal
profession and to assist in the advancement of its goals, organizations and institutions.
Seems quite obvious to me Williams has not followed these rules of his profession.
Williams is also quoted as saying:
"I was quite surprised, you know, that a current chief justice would have sent a letter to the Premier raising an objection, because you know, there's a clear distinction between the role of the executive branches of government, and you know, that crosses the line."
Really? What line? Williams' line, because Williams wants the ego trip of having a court house named after him? It's clearly a constitutional requirement that judges protect their independence from the appearance or perception of bias. You would think Williams would know that. Still, he ridicules the Chief Justice.
Then in an attempt to show just "how normal and non-controversial" the naming of the court house after him was, Williams says:
" The Court House in Grand Bank was named after Chief Justice Hickman who was the former Minister of Justice in either the Smallwood or Moores era I think, but he was alive at the time and of course there wasn't ever an issue with that, so."
Williams conveniently doesn't mention that after his political career, Hickman was Chief Justice for 20 years until he retired. Whether that remains a correct thing to do or not is up for debate, but it in no way compares to Williams situation. Justice Orsborn assessed it as such in his letter to Marshall.
All of this is the way Williams has attempted to rule Newfoundland and Labrador since at least 2003. Pit people against each other in an attempt to humiliate and marginalize his opposition. Ignore realities that don't suit and manipulate arguments to suit the purpose. Threaten those that disagree by accusing them of "crossing the line". For myself and the Telegram provincial newspaper that meant being sued by Williams for defamation. For Chief Justice Orsborn it apparently means being derobed of your judicial dignity and independence publicly by a man consumed by his own image - as he sees it.
It is time for Danny Williams to be brought down a whole lot of pegs. It's time that his abuse of his public position as former premier, that is to say using that position to threaten and demean those that see things differently than him, to end. Attacking a well-respected, extremely experienced and highly intelligent Justice like Chief Justice Orsborn is an outrage. Williams should be dragged through every editorial column in the land for even daring to attack the integrity of a Chief Justice. The Court should defend the honour and integrity of Chief Justice Orsborn, and its own, by throwing Danny Williams into jail for contempt, so that he realizes that nobody is above the law. Yes, not even Danny Williams. Or, perhaps, especially not Danny Williams. We have to know that the Courts and the media aren't afraid of the little man from St. John's.
This past Tuesday I was in front of Justice Orsborn requesting a date be set to hear my application that Danny Williams' lawsuit against me for defamation be thrown out. The grounds for striking the lawsuit were that Williams accepted being named to a court house building in Corner Brook that houses the chamber of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, and through which justices of the Court rotate through as part of their duties.
Justice Orsborn, quite seriously, put an end to the Court's involvement in the matter. He stated that neither he, nor any other justice of the Trial Division would hear the case, and that he had requested Chief Justice Green of the Appeal Court appoint an Appeal Court Justice to preside over the matter. In effect, Justice Orsborn recused himself and the entire Trial Division from hearing the matter. I was surprised. Williams' lawyer was in a state of shock. Then came the big one. Orsborn continued by saying he had written former premier Marshall on the naming issue, and had decided to give counsel a copy of the letter. The Court Clerk dutifully delivered us each a copy sealed in a vanilla-type envelope.
The letter, which is below, essentially raises many of the same concerns I had over the court house naming after Williams. Kind of common sense stuff, which doesn't seem to be so common in the Government of this Province.
I made the decision to release the letter to the media, because, in my mind, it was a very real matter of public interest, and a classic example of abuse of power and position. It most importantly illustrated that the sanctity of the Courts could be violated by politics, which then brings the independence of our court system into question. This is especially true given our judges are appointed by politicians. In effect this takes on the perception that powerful politicians become judge, jury and executioner.
The story went across the country. Williams, belatedly spoke to the issue. I was almost as shocked by his response as I was of the similar theme between Justice Orsborn's commentary and my own argument.
Williams actually attacked Justice Orsborn's integrity.
Here are some samples of what he said:
" Obviously, this Chief Justice Orsborn had an issue that he had dealt with privately, unsuccessfully, and then basically through another vehicle (that would be me) decided to table it and make it public"
Now, if I was Justice Orsborn, Williams would be waking up this morning in jail. Parse the above statement. " 'This' Chief Justice Orsborn." Really? As if he is speaking down to one of the top judges in the province, like a petty little school girl. Then, in the remainder of the sentence he accuses Justice Orsborn of willfully and with malice of using his courtroom and position in a way that would be an abuse of the bench. In my way of reading, if that isn't contemptuous of the position of Justice Orsborne, and the Court, then I'm not sure what the meaning of contempt of court would be. Black's Law Dictionary defines contempt of court: Contumacy; a willful disregard of the authority of a court of justice or legislative body or disobedience of its lawful orders. Contempt of court is committed by a person who does any act in willful contravention of its authority or dignity.
I'll go with that last one. Willful contravention of the dignity of the Court. Also, It would also seem to me that Justice Orsborn has a very strong, and likely very expensive defamation case against Williams if he wants one.
"there were other judges there and: They didn't see anything wrong with it, but obviously Chief Justice Orsborn has a different opinion. That's probably the nicest way I can put it." So now Williams, typical to form, is pitting people against people to try and win a point. The problem with this particular comment is that he's referring to Justices of the Courts. It's as if he is not conscience of the fact that Judges shouldn't be endorsing political events. It's as if he doesn't care. It's as if "hey, everyone else is doing it, so it must be right, and you must be odd man out." It's childish and it's stupid, and it's contemptuous of the positions that judges hold, and have to hold, in our society. All this from a man that purports to hold a law degree.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Law Society describes these 3 criteria for it's members:
2.1-1 A lawyer has a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all
responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public and other members of the profession
honourably and with integrity
[2] Public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal profession may
be eroded by a lawyer’s irresponsible conduct. Accordingly, a lawyer’s conduct should
reflect favourably on the legal profession, inspire the confidence, respect and trust of
clients and of the community, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
2.1-2 A lawyer has a duty to uphold the standards and reputation of the legal
profession and to assist in the advancement of its goals, organizations and institutions.
Seems quite obvious to me Williams has not followed these rules of his profession.
Williams is also quoted as saying:
"I was quite surprised, you know, that a current chief justice would have sent a letter to the Premier raising an objection, because you know, there's a clear distinction between the role of the executive branches of government, and you know, that crosses the line."
Really? What line? Williams' line, because Williams wants the ego trip of having a court house named after him? It's clearly a constitutional requirement that judges protect their independence from the appearance or perception of bias. You would think Williams would know that. Still, he ridicules the Chief Justice.
Then in an attempt to show just "how normal and non-controversial" the naming of the court house after him was, Williams says:
" The Court House in Grand Bank was named after Chief Justice Hickman who was the former Minister of Justice in either the Smallwood or Moores era I think, but he was alive at the time and of course there wasn't ever an issue with that, so."
Williams conveniently doesn't mention that after his political career, Hickman was Chief Justice for 20 years until he retired. Whether that remains a correct thing to do or not is up for debate, but it in no way compares to Williams situation. Justice Orsborn assessed it as such in his letter to Marshall.
All of this is the way Williams has attempted to rule Newfoundland and Labrador since at least 2003. Pit people against each other in an attempt to humiliate and marginalize his opposition. Ignore realities that don't suit and manipulate arguments to suit the purpose. Threaten those that disagree by accusing them of "crossing the line". For myself and the Telegram provincial newspaper that meant being sued by Williams for defamation. For Chief Justice Orsborn it apparently means being derobed of your judicial dignity and independence publicly by a man consumed by his own image - as he sees it.
It is time for Danny Williams to be brought down a whole lot of pegs. It's time that his abuse of his public position as former premier, that is to say using that position to threaten and demean those that see things differently than him, to end. Attacking a well-respected, extremely experienced and highly intelligent Justice like Chief Justice Orsborn is an outrage. Williams should be dragged through every editorial column in the land for even daring to attack the integrity of a Chief Justice. The Court should defend the honour and integrity of Chief Justice Orsborn, and its own, by throwing Danny Williams into jail for contempt, so that he realizes that nobody is above the law. Yes, not even Danny Williams. Or, perhaps, especially not Danny Williams. We have to know that the Courts and the media aren't afraid of the little man from St. John's.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Putin Plays the West
It's early days in the battle I often refer to as the "Gold War". Russia and China, having announced their intention to form a new Eurasian economic order, inclusive of India and other BRIC nations, are now fending off blows from the West. The Russian ruble, currently pegged to the US dollar, has been taking a hammering as the US and more specifically its ally Saudi Arabia, glut the world oil market forcing a massive decline in the price per barrel. One has to assume it's part of the "price" Obama said Russia would pay for its intervention to materially support Eastern Ukraine (Novorossyia) separatist forces. That's just on the face of it though.
Consider and remember that China is the bank and Russia is the sword of the new Eurasian alliance. The goal of that alliance is not to do well under the US dollar, but to replace the US dollar as the world's reserve currency with either a new currency or the Chinese yuan. That is important. Both China and Russia have large reserves of foreign currency - in Russia's case nearly $500 billion.
Then consider Russian President Putin. He rose through Russia's power ranks as an intelligence officer. That is one of three important pieces of the pie. That means: he uses deception and part truths to achieve an end; he is disciplined and demands the same of others in his circle; he is ruthless and flexible in achieving his goals; and he will never crack. Secondly, he is a judo master. That means he uses movement and blocking to defend against blows, but most importantly he uses the energy of his enemy as his own to defeat an attack. That part is critically important to remember. Finally, he is Russian. Russians have a proud place in world history due to the massive and brutal sacrifices they have made along the way. The most recent of which was the 25 million Russians who died during World War Two while ensnaring most of Hitler's armies, and giving the other allies time to organize and become engaged. Russians are used to sacrifice, and are super sensitive about the "Motherland" being prosecuted by foreigners.
Putin is using all three of these elements. He is using the Motherland as the force behind him, that will hold him upright in battle. He is using judo to block, move, and use the energy of his foes. He remains disciplined to his cause while apparently allowing his foe to walk into, no run into, his trap.
Why did Putin move into Crimea, and then support (with deniability) Eastern Ukraine separatists? What purpose does a "frozen conflict", as some call it, serve? Well, it's simply a means to an end. On the one hand it's defensive as the US took over influence of Ukraine, on Russia's border. On the other hand it's reason to invite economic conflict with the US. Putin had to know the US would not go to physical war with Russia over Ukraine - especially the quasi occupation of just a part of Ukraine. So the natural deduction would be financial sanctions to try and remove Russia from the US's new ally's territory. The territory of Ukraine being it's only real strategic value. However, its real value to Putin is to not let the US and to a lesser extent Europe escape from a financial battle.
When Obama rushed in to "make Russia pay" for its actions in Ukraine, Putin must have been smiling. Every sanction the US placed against Russia was matched by Western Europe. Western Europe is dependent on Russia for economic survival. The US can't replace the European loss of market in Russia, so anything other than a very short sanction period means severe financial harm for Europe - especially Germany. As Europe slides into recession and worst, Russia can now sit by and watch as Europeans blame US sanctions for destroying their markets. While the US projects strength in Europe with sanctions and military posturing, Europeans suffer the effects. Not dissimilar to the US of Europe as battlegrounds of past wars.
With every new economic sanction waged against Russia, Putin can turn to his own people and make the case that "Western partners" are too unstable and immature to have trading relations with. All the more need for an Eurasian alliance of like-minded, stable countries who want peace and brotherly love. The more the US pushes the faster it loses. Like quick sand.
Today Putin announced that Russia has $500 billion in foreign currency. Enough, according to him, to defend the ruble for two years. However, this is the intelligence officer's half truth. While it may be true that the reserves will defend the ruble, is the purpose to defend the ruble, or is the purpose to use up the foreign currency before Russia and China switch to a gold based currency standard, thus making the US dollar irrelevant as the world reserve currency. I suggest they're using up what they have while it still has a value to them. It gives them 2 years, as Putin partially said, to transform their monetary systems to gold based. After that, they don't care.
Lastly, the US and Saudi flooding of the oil market is also working for Putin and China. China gets to stock its strategic oil reserves on the cheap. Saudi and other major oil producers are losing massive revenue that they can't replace, and they are not meant to transition into the new Eurasian/BRIC alliance - meaning they won't have anywhere of significance to sell their oil in 2 years, and will be infighting with the US and other partners for market share. Meanwhile, in the Eurasian/BRIC alliance Russia, Iran and Venezuela will be selling their oil to China, South America and Africa in a stable market which has no competitors, and controls three quarters of the world's population.
So, the best way to view the events of today is to remember that the intelligence officer's mantra is "kill at least two birds with one stone". Cheap oil hurts Russia in the interim, but it solidifies the need for a stable market place in people's minds. Russian peoples minds. Chinese peoples minds. Etc. Where is the stable market? Well obviously not the US as they "ride like cowboys into the China shop", or US allies that let them. As the US proverbially throws a punch at it, Russia proverbially uses that energy to reach its final goal. For the rest of us, it means be prepared to be the collateral damage. Protect yourself, and your investments as best you can, because when big powers fight the little guy is not on the radar.
Consider and remember that China is the bank and Russia is the sword of the new Eurasian alliance. The goal of that alliance is not to do well under the US dollar, but to replace the US dollar as the world's reserve currency with either a new currency or the Chinese yuan. That is important. Both China and Russia have large reserves of foreign currency - in Russia's case nearly $500 billion.
Then consider Russian President Putin. He rose through Russia's power ranks as an intelligence officer. That is one of three important pieces of the pie. That means: he uses deception and part truths to achieve an end; he is disciplined and demands the same of others in his circle; he is ruthless and flexible in achieving his goals; and he will never crack. Secondly, he is a judo master. That means he uses movement and blocking to defend against blows, but most importantly he uses the energy of his enemy as his own to defeat an attack. That part is critically important to remember. Finally, he is Russian. Russians have a proud place in world history due to the massive and brutal sacrifices they have made along the way. The most recent of which was the 25 million Russians who died during World War Two while ensnaring most of Hitler's armies, and giving the other allies time to organize and become engaged. Russians are used to sacrifice, and are super sensitive about the "Motherland" being prosecuted by foreigners.
Putin is using all three of these elements. He is using the Motherland as the force behind him, that will hold him upright in battle. He is using judo to block, move, and use the energy of his foes. He remains disciplined to his cause while apparently allowing his foe to walk into, no run into, his trap.
Why did Putin move into Crimea, and then support (with deniability) Eastern Ukraine separatists? What purpose does a "frozen conflict", as some call it, serve? Well, it's simply a means to an end. On the one hand it's defensive as the US took over influence of Ukraine, on Russia's border. On the other hand it's reason to invite economic conflict with the US. Putin had to know the US would not go to physical war with Russia over Ukraine - especially the quasi occupation of just a part of Ukraine. So the natural deduction would be financial sanctions to try and remove Russia from the US's new ally's territory. The territory of Ukraine being it's only real strategic value. However, its real value to Putin is to not let the US and to a lesser extent Europe escape from a financial battle.
When Obama rushed in to "make Russia pay" for its actions in Ukraine, Putin must have been smiling. Every sanction the US placed against Russia was matched by Western Europe. Western Europe is dependent on Russia for economic survival. The US can't replace the European loss of market in Russia, so anything other than a very short sanction period means severe financial harm for Europe - especially Germany. As Europe slides into recession and worst, Russia can now sit by and watch as Europeans blame US sanctions for destroying their markets. While the US projects strength in Europe with sanctions and military posturing, Europeans suffer the effects. Not dissimilar to the US of Europe as battlegrounds of past wars.
With every new economic sanction waged against Russia, Putin can turn to his own people and make the case that "Western partners" are too unstable and immature to have trading relations with. All the more need for an Eurasian alliance of like-minded, stable countries who want peace and brotherly love. The more the US pushes the faster it loses. Like quick sand.
Today Putin announced that Russia has $500 billion in foreign currency. Enough, according to him, to defend the ruble for two years. However, this is the intelligence officer's half truth. While it may be true that the reserves will defend the ruble, is the purpose to defend the ruble, or is the purpose to use up the foreign currency before Russia and China switch to a gold based currency standard, thus making the US dollar irrelevant as the world reserve currency. I suggest they're using up what they have while it still has a value to them. It gives them 2 years, as Putin partially said, to transform their monetary systems to gold based. After that, they don't care.
Lastly, the US and Saudi flooding of the oil market is also working for Putin and China. China gets to stock its strategic oil reserves on the cheap. Saudi and other major oil producers are losing massive revenue that they can't replace, and they are not meant to transition into the new Eurasian/BRIC alliance - meaning they won't have anywhere of significance to sell their oil in 2 years, and will be infighting with the US and other partners for market share. Meanwhile, in the Eurasian/BRIC alliance Russia, Iran and Venezuela will be selling their oil to China, South America and Africa in a stable market which has no competitors, and controls three quarters of the world's population.
So, the best way to view the events of today is to remember that the intelligence officer's mantra is "kill at least two birds with one stone". Cheap oil hurts Russia in the interim, but it solidifies the need for a stable market place in people's minds. Russian peoples minds. Chinese peoples minds. Etc. Where is the stable market? Well obviously not the US as they "ride like cowboys into the China shop", or US allies that let them. As the US proverbially throws a punch at it, Russia proverbially uses that energy to reach its final goal. For the rest of us, it means be prepared to be the collateral damage. Protect yourself, and your investments as best you can, because when big powers fight the little guy is not on the radar.
Monday, December 8, 2014
In NL the Budget Man Cometh
Danny Williams ' big spin was Newfoundland and Labrador would become Master of its own house. Remember that? He created Nalcor for that purpose. His government acted as if this was somehow possible. It wasn't then, and it isn't now.
There is no better modern example of how every economy in the world is dependent on each other than the world-wide economic war happening right now. It's a war the US thinks it's winning, yet it's a war the US has already lost. Hand-in-hand with Saudi Arabia, the US is flooding the market with oil to devastate economies that depend on its revenue. Russia just happens to be the number one oil producer in the world. The aim is of course to drain Russia, Iran and Venezuela of budget revenue, and ultimately ruin the new Eurasian/BRIC alliance while in its infancy.
The problem with the strategy is the intended victims, Russia and China, have historically proven they can withstand any adversity. The 25 million Russians killed while bleeding the German army white during WW II is one example. Ditto for Napoleon. Etc. The Chinese sent 250 million people back to their villages without jobs or income after the last big world economic collapse in 2008. Not even a bead of sweat creased their brow. These are tough populations, used to adversity, and determined. Our side not so much. In a game of mutually assured economic destruction, as is being played out now world-wide, the only sure bet is the populations of Europe and North America are far less willing or able to withstand economic hardship than our fellow human beings on the other side.
Where its all leading for oil is fairly predictable. Putin hinted as much when he recently commented that ISIS was surviving by selling oil on the international black market for $30 a barrel. I take that comment, in the context it was made, as a direct challenge to the Western powers attempting to empty his coffers: "Russia is prepared to see oil fall as low as $30 a barrel in an international game of chicken". Let's say that's true, what are the ramifications of that strategy for us?
Oil accounts for 33% of all revenue in our provincial budget each year. We are now fully dependent on oil revenue for our standard of living - government and the population. We have borrowed. We are in debt to our eyeballs. An oil recession in this province would be far more dangerous here than most places. The government has spent every cent of oil revenue in the last 9 years, except the $2 billion or so that is needed for the Muskrat Falls down payment required by the federal loan guarantee. They borrowed a billion dollars last year on top of that to pay bills. This year the deficit looks to be about $600 million or so. That will have to be borrowed as well. That means our gross debt, the money we actually owe, is almost $1.5 billion higher than when Williams was elected , and the oil money started coming in.
But what will it mean going forward? If oil settles at $60 a barrel, as many economists are predicting, our annual budget will lose about $1.25 billion. That is catastrophic for the provincial economy. That is recession. The reason is that this province relies heavily on government spending to drive the economy. Some examples are Muskrat Falls, hospitals, etc. Without that expenditure, the private companies that relied on it die on the vine. Have no illusion, they will die on the vine. That means much higher unemployment numbers, serious drops in real estate values, and all that spirals from that as usual.
It means massive cuts in government spending on programs and people. It means recession. Now, if Russia carries out its implied intention to ride the oil wave down to $30 a barrel, the consequences are much different. A $30 per barrel drop means Newfoundland and Labrador loses over $2 billion in oil revenue per year. That means depression. That means default on large loans - like the federal loan guarantee on Muskrat Falls. That means Hebron is cancelled. It means an end to all oil exploration, and the end for the many local companies living off servicing the oil industry. It means massive unemployment in the private sector and the public sector. At least in the range of 25%.
Now, you might think this is an exaggeration, but remember that the provincial GDP increases of the last decade have been almost solely based on oil revenue. The economy and society have inflated along with the boom. Personal debt has increased with the expressed idea that oil would keep going up. Government debt ditto. Therefore, the dramatic shock of oil deflation has even more severe consequences than would normally be expected. If you want a really good example, look to the oil bust in Alberta in the 1980's. That was Alberta's first big bust. They were like us. They spent like it would never end. It ended, and when it did people walked away from their houses... Alberta was devastated, and it had a government savings account - the Heritage Fund. We don't have one of those.
At $30 a barrel the refinery at Come-by-Chance is almost certain to close. Ditto for the Hebron development. Those two projects alone would have a massive financial effect in central Newfoundland. Muskrat Falls also comes into focus. Selling power at a loss for the sake of it may be trumped by common financial sense, and that project may be abandoned. As bad as its financial are now, financial arrangements still have not been made with the Nunatukavut or Nunatsiavut governments, which can be expected to be at least $1 billion extra. Then there is the prospect of Hydro-Quebec winning its lawsuit over the water management agreement. That one you can take to the bank. In 2010, the provincial department of Natural Resources estimated such a loss in court would result in billions of dollars in damages being awarded by the courts. It also stated that CF(L)Co would be bankrupted. These are the facts.
There is no bright side to the economic war being waged by the big powers in the world. Not even for them. It's the kind of "battle to the last man" that by necessity means no one else survives. We are and will remain casualties of the "greater good". We are also casualties of a foolish and irresponsible spending policy of the Williams' regime. We are also casualties of our own acquiescence to the Williams' vision. The problem, and it's a very serious problem, is Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not being informed of the reasons for it all. It's put down to "lower oil prices" and that's about the extent of the explanation by government. They say only two things are certain: death; and taxes. Add a third: ignorance is no excuse.
There is no better modern example of how every economy in the world is dependent on each other than the world-wide economic war happening right now. It's a war the US thinks it's winning, yet it's a war the US has already lost. Hand-in-hand with Saudi Arabia, the US is flooding the market with oil to devastate economies that depend on its revenue. Russia just happens to be the number one oil producer in the world. The aim is of course to drain Russia, Iran and Venezuela of budget revenue, and ultimately ruin the new Eurasian/BRIC alliance while in its infancy.
The problem with the strategy is the intended victims, Russia and China, have historically proven they can withstand any adversity. The 25 million Russians killed while bleeding the German army white during WW II is one example. Ditto for Napoleon. Etc. The Chinese sent 250 million people back to their villages without jobs or income after the last big world economic collapse in 2008. Not even a bead of sweat creased their brow. These are tough populations, used to adversity, and determined. Our side not so much. In a game of mutually assured economic destruction, as is being played out now world-wide, the only sure bet is the populations of Europe and North America are far less willing or able to withstand economic hardship than our fellow human beings on the other side.
Where its all leading for oil is fairly predictable. Putin hinted as much when he recently commented that ISIS was surviving by selling oil on the international black market for $30 a barrel. I take that comment, in the context it was made, as a direct challenge to the Western powers attempting to empty his coffers: "Russia is prepared to see oil fall as low as $30 a barrel in an international game of chicken". Let's say that's true, what are the ramifications of that strategy for us?
Oil accounts for 33% of all revenue in our provincial budget each year. We are now fully dependent on oil revenue for our standard of living - government and the population. We have borrowed. We are in debt to our eyeballs. An oil recession in this province would be far more dangerous here than most places. The government has spent every cent of oil revenue in the last 9 years, except the $2 billion or so that is needed for the Muskrat Falls down payment required by the federal loan guarantee. They borrowed a billion dollars last year on top of that to pay bills. This year the deficit looks to be about $600 million or so. That will have to be borrowed as well. That means our gross debt, the money we actually owe, is almost $1.5 billion higher than when Williams was elected , and the oil money started coming in.
But what will it mean going forward? If oil settles at $60 a barrel, as many economists are predicting, our annual budget will lose about $1.25 billion. That is catastrophic for the provincial economy. That is recession. The reason is that this province relies heavily on government spending to drive the economy. Some examples are Muskrat Falls, hospitals, etc. Without that expenditure, the private companies that relied on it die on the vine. Have no illusion, they will die on the vine. That means much higher unemployment numbers, serious drops in real estate values, and all that spirals from that as usual.
It means massive cuts in government spending on programs and people. It means recession. Now, if Russia carries out its implied intention to ride the oil wave down to $30 a barrel, the consequences are much different. A $30 per barrel drop means Newfoundland and Labrador loses over $2 billion in oil revenue per year. That means depression. That means default on large loans - like the federal loan guarantee on Muskrat Falls. That means Hebron is cancelled. It means an end to all oil exploration, and the end for the many local companies living off servicing the oil industry. It means massive unemployment in the private sector and the public sector. At least in the range of 25%.
Now, you might think this is an exaggeration, but remember that the provincial GDP increases of the last decade have been almost solely based on oil revenue. The economy and society have inflated along with the boom. Personal debt has increased with the expressed idea that oil would keep going up. Government debt ditto. Therefore, the dramatic shock of oil deflation has even more severe consequences than would normally be expected. If you want a really good example, look to the oil bust in Alberta in the 1980's. That was Alberta's first big bust. They were like us. They spent like it would never end. It ended, and when it did people walked away from their houses... Alberta was devastated, and it had a government savings account - the Heritage Fund. We don't have one of those.
At $30 a barrel the refinery at Come-by-Chance is almost certain to close. Ditto for the Hebron development. Those two projects alone would have a massive financial effect in central Newfoundland. Muskrat Falls also comes into focus. Selling power at a loss for the sake of it may be trumped by common financial sense, and that project may be abandoned. As bad as its financial are now, financial arrangements still have not been made with the Nunatukavut or Nunatsiavut governments, which can be expected to be at least $1 billion extra. Then there is the prospect of Hydro-Quebec winning its lawsuit over the water management agreement. That one you can take to the bank. In 2010, the provincial department of Natural Resources estimated such a loss in court would result in billions of dollars in damages being awarded by the courts. It also stated that CF(L)Co would be bankrupted. These are the facts.
There is no bright side to the economic war being waged by the big powers in the world. Not even for them. It's the kind of "battle to the last man" that by necessity means no one else survives. We are and will remain casualties of the "greater good". We are also casualties of a foolish and irresponsible spending policy of the Williams' regime. We are also casualties of our own acquiescence to the Williams' vision. The problem, and it's a very serious problem, is Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not being informed of the reasons for it all. It's put down to "lower oil prices" and that's about the extent of the explanation by government. They say only two things are certain: death; and taxes. Add a third: ignorance is no excuse.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
The Death of the PC Empire in Newfoundland and Labrador
Seven by-elections later, without success, the ruling Tories in Newfoundland and Labrador resemble the old Iraq war slogan "shock and awe". Last night it was clearly visible on the faces of the defeated candidates and the cabinet ministers that campaigned on their behalf. It's not that they don't understand what's happening to them, it's just that they don't understand what happened to them.
For the PCs all roads lead to Muskrat Falls. After previously sacred Danny Williams got his Muskrat Falls deal he resigned - mere weeks later. That shattered the "God" image so carefully crafted. The population was left unstable as if it had lost its father, and its foundation had been shaken. Such is the danger of iron man rule - all men are mortal.
Then there was the viscous battle on the airwaves and in the social media over the wisdom and value of the project. The PCs hired expensive communication firms, and stalled requests for information on the project. When that strategy appeared to crack the Tories turned to their normal practice: legislation. They created Bill 29 to amend the Access to Information Act. Typically that would be shuffled off as no big deal. It's not as if the public are filing access requests. However, the press, smelling a rat, went ballistic. Muskrat Falls opponents and the opposition parties grabbed onto the issue, backed by the press, and even forced a multi-day filibuster. More importantly the image was sealed. The PCs couldn't sell the bill as just normal legislation, and the public began seeing it as an act to cover-up Muskrat Falls dealings. That was when the trust was violated.
Thereafter the PCs, generally speaking, lost public trust in their word, but not necessarily in the project. Newly appointed leader Dunderdale and her team, which included Williams' brother, decided to attack the Muskrat Falls opponents rather than address the core public trust issue. She termed opponents as "nay-sayers, known critics of the government" etc... Her arrogance, and that of her colleagues, was so palpable the public became repulsed. When the PUB refused to give the project an unfettered endorsement, the PCs went crazy with indignation - including Williams who derided not just opponents, but also the PUB. It was war in a way. The problem for the PCs was their guns were focused in the wrong direction. As distrust grew, the people began taking opponents accusations seriously, and so an attack on the assertions of proponents began to be an attack on the people themselves.
It always was, and remained a battle for hearts and minds. The PCs refusal to alter their strategy of arrogantly attacking those opposed to their vision, and instead addressing the core issue of trust, resulted in a solidification of the view that "the PCs were out of touch". A natural result when a government can't see the core issue and instead shoots the messenger. So great was the vitriol that Dunderdale became almost detested by the public. The PC caucus decided their poll numbers were bad enough to fire Dunderdale, and they did just that. However, by this time, the public considered them, rightly so, as all infected by the same affliction - arrogance.
As if to emphasize the point the PCs, led on the outskirts by Williams, attacked leadership candidate Bill Barry (a reformist-type candidate) and coronated a pro-Muskrat Falls businessman - Frank Coleman. At one time an endorsement by Williams would have guaranteed a candidate acceptance among the public, but this time it back fired. The endorsement hung around Coleman's head like a guillotine, and in the end the blade came down. Coleman's company, HVP, was quietly released from a money losing government contract in Labrador, and the $18 million dollar performance bonds that were meant to guarantee it. After months of agony, and accusations "Danny's Man" was simply implementing "Danny's Will", Coleman resigned before he was even sworn in.
That led to another leadership race, after the first one was quietly swept under the carpet like it never happened, and Paul Davis was anointed the new PC leader. Davis immediately came under scrutiny for political ties to his old employer, the RNC provincial police. At the core of the issue were campaign donations that were banned by the RNC Act. (to this day the 2013 Political Contribution List has not been released publicly - although it has been ready for 7 months I'm aware of). Furthermore, an apparent political deal reached between himself and perennial political opportunist Steve Kent still hung in the air as Kent was appointed Deputy Premier. The public smelled the same-old Tory contempt for democracy that had its roots in the Muskrat Falls battles, and Davis was labelled. Then came consummation of another apparent political deal when Senator Manning's (a Davis leadership supporter) niece was appointed to cabinet as an unelected Justice Minister.
Every action has a reaction. Every move the PCs made over the last four years did the exact opposite of what they intended. They reinforced the perception created by the Muskrat Falls battles that secrecy and power were the poison of choice for the PCs. They never adjusted from having a front man that could sell ice to Eskimos. They never saw the effect of the 5th column that battled them at every turn over Muskrat Falls. They never realized that the core issues with Muskrat Falls would stick and become the core issues against the government. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. So it went with the PCs. All their roads led to Muskrat Falls.
For the PCs all roads lead to Muskrat Falls. After previously sacred Danny Williams got his Muskrat Falls deal he resigned - mere weeks later. That shattered the "God" image so carefully crafted. The population was left unstable as if it had lost its father, and its foundation had been shaken. Such is the danger of iron man rule - all men are mortal.
Then there was the viscous battle on the airwaves and in the social media over the wisdom and value of the project. The PCs hired expensive communication firms, and stalled requests for information on the project. When that strategy appeared to crack the Tories turned to their normal practice: legislation. They created Bill 29 to amend the Access to Information Act. Typically that would be shuffled off as no big deal. It's not as if the public are filing access requests. However, the press, smelling a rat, went ballistic. Muskrat Falls opponents and the opposition parties grabbed onto the issue, backed by the press, and even forced a multi-day filibuster. More importantly the image was sealed. The PCs couldn't sell the bill as just normal legislation, and the public began seeing it as an act to cover-up Muskrat Falls dealings. That was when the trust was violated.
Thereafter the PCs, generally speaking, lost public trust in their word, but not necessarily in the project. Newly appointed leader Dunderdale and her team, which included Williams' brother, decided to attack the Muskrat Falls opponents rather than address the core public trust issue. She termed opponents as "nay-sayers, known critics of the government" etc... Her arrogance, and that of her colleagues, was so palpable the public became repulsed. When the PUB refused to give the project an unfettered endorsement, the PCs went crazy with indignation - including Williams who derided not just opponents, but also the PUB. It was war in a way. The problem for the PCs was their guns were focused in the wrong direction. As distrust grew, the people began taking opponents accusations seriously, and so an attack on the assertions of proponents began to be an attack on the people themselves.
It always was, and remained a battle for hearts and minds. The PCs refusal to alter their strategy of arrogantly attacking those opposed to their vision, and instead addressing the core issue of trust, resulted in a solidification of the view that "the PCs were out of touch". A natural result when a government can't see the core issue and instead shoots the messenger. So great was the vitriol that Dunderdale became almost detested by the public. The PC caucus decided their poll numbers were bad enough to fire Dunderdale, and they did just that. However, by this time, the public considered them, rightly so, as all infected by the same affliction - arrogance.
As if to emphasize the point the PCs, led on the outskirts by Williams, attacked leadership candidate Bill Barry (a reformist-type candidate) and coronated a pro-Muskrat Falls businessman - Frank Coleman. At one time an endorsement by Williams would have guaranteed a candidate acceptance among the public, but this time it back fired. The endorsement hung around Coleman's head like a guillotine, and in the end the blade came down. Coleman's company, HVP, was quietly released from a money losing government contract in Labrador, and the $18 million dollar performance bonds that were meant to guarantee it. After months of agony, and accusations "Danny's Man" was simply implementing "Danny's Will", Coleman resigned before he was even sworn in.
That led to another leadership race, after the first one was quietly swept under the carpet like it never happened, and Paul Davis was anointed the new PC leader. Davis immediately came under scrutiny for political ties to his old employer, the RNC provincial police. At the core of the issue were campaign donations that were banned by the RNC Act. (to this day the 2013 Political Contribution List has not been released publicly - although it has been ready for 7 months I'm aware of). Furthermore, an apparent political deal reached between himself and perennial political opportunist Steve Kent still hung in the air as Kent was appointed Deputy Premier. The public smelled the same-old Tory contempt for democracy that had its roots in the Muskrat Falls battles, and Davis was labelled. Then came consummation of another apparent political deal when Senator Manning's (a Davis leadership supporter) niece was appointed to cabinet as an unelected Justice Minister.
Every action has a reaction. Every move the PCs made over the last four years did the exact opposite of what they intended. They reinforced the perception created by the Muskrat Falls battles that secrecy and power were the poison of choice for the PCs. They never adjusted from having a front man that could sell ice to Eskimos. They never saw the effect of the 5th column that battled them at every turn over Muskrat Falls. They never realized that the core issues with Muskrat Falls would stick and become the core issues against the government. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. So it went with the PCs. All their roads led to Muskrat Falls.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Liberal-ly speaking
I've been wanting to write this post for along time. How to say it? When to say it? The time seems right now. In 2011 I left the PC party as the government it represents was so corrupt I could no longer bare associating myself with it. Others will say it was poor sportsmanship. Some have suggested political opportunism, as if leaving a Party at 75% in the polls for a Party at 14% in the polls was opportunism. No, the real reason was as stated - principle. Then the poor old Liberals looked like a rag tag band of warriors at best. Fighting the good fight, but hopelessly outgunned by a PC machine flooded with corporate donations, and generally ridiculed by the provincial media. That was then and this is now.
Three years later, and five leaders later, the PC Party twists in its death throws as it desperately avoids the fate of all tyrants. Now, the Liberals are the top guns and the media ridicules the PC's. So is the circle of life I suppose. But, what does the Liberal Party hold for the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador when the inevitable election day comes next year?
My father was a life-long Liberal - to be sure. He campaigned to Liberal prime minister Louis St. Laurent for a unique Canadian flag. He submitted his own design for the same under Liberal Lester Pearson. He loved Pierre Trudeau. My family was a truly Liberal family. However, I've often wondered what he would make of the "modern" Liberals.
Gone are the days of the "Just Society", or important constitutional matters and nationhood. Gone is the focus on individual rights and freedoms. Missing in action is Canada as the friendly broker between combatants. Hopelessly ignored are the right of the Aboriginal peoples. All these things that once defined being Liberal have been discarded for "being a better Tory than the Tories". There is no word of a just society, or respect of the individual. There is primarily one focus - out doing the Tories as "managers of government". ie: who can spend the least. In an onslaught of extreme right wing ideology, the Liberal Party is now suffering an identity crisis. It is no longer what makes the Party Liberal. It's now about what makes the Party not Conservative. It has allowed its own identity to be dictated by its foe.
The provincial Liberal Party appears to be no different. Three years since 2011, and three leaders later, the Liberal Party's identity here is hardly distinguishable from that of the ruling PCs. Gone are the days of just three years ago when the Liberals stood in their place to fight Muskrat Falls tooth an nail. Gone is the determination to stop the project, and protect the average person from the impending financial assault the project necessarily would bring. Now it is simply a matter of managing the assault apparently. Barely visible among the Liberal candidates are the determined group that fought so hard to bring real change for the people. Real change being a definitive change to the corrupt political culture in the province, and the resulting responsible government that would bring. Instead, we have Nalcor bred candidates like Cathy Bennett (who has been promoted to Finance critic), and Grand Falls-Windsor Mayor Al Hawkins who the Tories appointed to Nalcor's Board only a short while ago. We have perennial establishment hangers on like Siobhan Coady ( big promoter of Alderon), formerly rabid PC and anti-Liberal Paul Lane, and so on and so on.
Instead of being the Party to transform Newfoundland and Labrador, the Liberal Party is looking much like the one it aims to replace. That may seem unduly harsh, and it may in fact be too harsh as the days are early, but the signs are not promising. It reminds me of the last election when, as a Liberal candidate, I found myself face to face with a salt of the earth man in the lower ends of Random Island. His main question to me: "Are you blue or red?". At the time I remember thinking surely their must be more on this man's mind than what colour my party is. Surely he must be concerned about the difference beyond the colour of our flags, but he wasn't. Perhaps therein was a pearl of wisdom.
With a now closing window before the next election, and by-election win tallies replacing serious vision, the question is are the Liberals to be any different than the Conservatives? Is it to be "Liberal Tory, same old story?" I don't know is the honest answer. My heart says no, but my brain is leaning yes. And, that really angers me. At a time in our history when we need a principled and visionary approach, the same old "pragmatism" appears to be reinventing itself. Where are the declarations on democratic reform by the Liberal Party? Where is the policy to eliminate the practice of corporate and union political donations that corrupt our democratic process? Where is the policy to determine how to halt Muskrat Falls until all the legalities are dealt with, not the least of which include: the Water Management Agreement; the Hydro-Quebec lawsuit; the Nunatsiavut lawsuits; and the Nunatukavut lawsuit. Where is the very real question of provincial debt and structural deficits? Where is the duty to our fishers. Where is a coherent, and humane approach to the fastest aging population in the western world - ours?
It's the silence that disturbs me. The silence and the familiarity of the actors entering the stage. Not many would expect the provincial Liberal Party to be "Trudeauesque". The federal Party isn't managing that yet. However, their should by now be a very clear vision toward the critical issues. The prevailing thought should not be: "silence is golden". The prevailing visual should not be a party consumed with winning, but rather a Party confident in winning based on its vision and principles - not on winning by default. Not winning, because we are not them. Not winning simply to replace one set of actors with another. The greatest betrayal of all is the Party that purports to be change, but simply carries on in the same manner - ie: Obama.
My hope and prayer is the Liberal Party defines itself, and commits itself, to being the agent of change that fundamentally improves the lives of its people - both politically and economically. Perhaps it is just that - a hope and a prayer.
Three years later, and five leaders later, the PC Party twists in its death throws as it desperately avoids the fate of all tyrants. Now, the Liberals are the top guns and the media ridicules the PC's. So is the circle of life I suppose. But, what does the Liberal Party hold for the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador when the inevitable election day comes next year?
My father was a life-long Liberal - to be sure. He campaigned to Liberal prime minister Louis St. Laurent for a unique Canadian flag. He submitted his own design for the same under Liberal Lester Pearson. He loved Pierre Trudeau. My family was a truly Liberal family. However, I've often wondered what he would make of the "modern" Liberals.
Gone are the days of the "Just Society", or important constitutional matters and nationhood. Gone is the focus on individual rights and freedoms. Missing in action is Canada as the friendly broker between combatants. Hopelessly ignored are the right of the Aboriginal peoples. All these things that once defined being Liberal have been discarded for "being a better Tory than the Tories". There is no word of a just society, or respect of the individual. There is primarily one focus - out doing the Tories as "managers of government". ie: who can spend the least. In an onslaught of extreme right wing ideology, the Liberal Party is now suffering an identity crisis. It is no longer what makes the Party Liberal. It's now about what makes the Party not Conservative. It has allowed its own identity to be dictated by its foe.
The provincial Liberal Party appears to be no different. Three years since 2011, and three leaders later, the Liberal Party's identity here is hardly distinguishable from that of the ruling PCs. Gone are the days of just three years ago when the Liberals stood in their place to fight Muskrat Falls tooth an nail. Gone is the determination to stop the project, and protect the average person from the impending financial assault the project necessarily would bring. Now it is simply a matter of managing the assault apparently. Barely visible among the Liberal candidates are the determined group that fought so hard to bring real change for the people. Real change being a definitive change to the corrupt political culture in the province, and the resulting responsible government that would bring. Instead, we have Nalcor bred candidates like Cathy Bennett (who has been promoted to Finance critic), and Grand Falls-Windsor Mayor Al Hawkins who the Tories appointed to Nalcor's Board only a short while ago. We have perennial establishment hangers on like Siobhan Coady ( big promoter of Alderon), formerly rabid PC and anti-Liberal Paul Lane, and so on and so on.
Instead of being the Party to transform Newfoundland and Labrador, the Liberal Party is looking much like the one it aims to replace. That may seem unduly harsh, and it may in fact be too harsh as the days are early, but the signs are not promising. It reminds me of the last election when, as a Liberal candidate, I found myself face to face with a salt of the earth man in the lower ends of Random Island. His main question to me: "Are you blue or red?". At the time I remember thinking surely their must be more on this man's mind than what colour my party is. Surely he must be concerned about the difference beyond the colour of our flags, but he wasn't. Perhaps therein was a pearl of wisdom.
With a now closing window before the next election, and by-election win tallies replacing serious vision, the question is are the Liberals to be any different than the Conservatives? Is it to be "Liberal Tory, same old story?" I don't know is the honest answer. My heart says no, but my brain is leaning yes. And, that really angers me. At a time in our history when we need a principled and visionary approach, the same old "pragmatism" appears to be reinventing itself. Where are the declarations on democratic reform by the Liberal Party? Where is the policy to eliminate the practice of corporate and union political donations that corrupt our democratic process? Where is the policy to determine how to halt Muskrat Falls until all the legalities are dealt with, not the least of which include: the Water Management Agreement; the Hydro-Quebec lawsuit; the Nunatsiavut lawsuits; and the Nunatukavut lawsuit. Where is the very real question of provincial debt and structural deficits? Where is the duty to our fishers. Where is a coherent, and humane approach to the fastest aging population in the western world - ours?
It's the silence that disturbs me. The silence and the familiarity of the actors entering the stage. Not many would expect the provincial Liberal Party to be "Trudeauesque". The federal Party isn't managing that yet. However, their should by now be a very clear vision toward the critical issues. The prevailing thought should not be: "silence is golden". The prevailing visual should not be a party consumed with winning, but rather a Party confident in winning based on its vision and principles - not on winning by default. Not winning, because we are not them. Not winning simply to replace one set of actors with another. The greatest betrayal of all is the Party that purports to be change, but simply carries on in the same manner - ie: Obama.
My hope and prayer is the Liberal Party defines itself, and commits itself, to being the agent of change that fundamentally improves the lives of its people - both politically and economically. Perhaps it is just that - a hope and a prayer.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Sliding toward Deflation
Think of the world as an engine designed and built to run in a certain way, and at a certain speed. The fuel of the engine is growth. The chemistry of the fuel is debt. Then imagine one half of the world (the developed countries) running at full speed for 60 years, while the other half of the world (Asia, Africa, and South America) idling. Because our half of the world has been running full speed, we have used the most debt to power our engines, and the world economy has built itself around that fact. Now imagine that so much debt has been used to fuel the engine that it is almost depleted. Meanwhile the other half of the world is just warming up its engine and has plenty of potential debt to consume. What is the logical consequence? One falls while the other soars.
Now superimpose the unfolding China/Russia/BRIC economic order that is forming to reflect that reality. Let's call it the "New Club". Roughly designed to resemble the Soviet days of trading between countries to the exclusion of others, the New Club is rapidly building a new engine. One that attempts to capitalize on each countries strengths and satisfying each countries needs. If that sounds familiar consider Karl Marx's famous borrowed slogan " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Essentially, this is the new slogan of the New Club. China has the currency and the manpower. Russia has the natural resources, technology, and the know how. India has the population and science. South America has specific resources. Africa has population and need.
Together, these countries are forming a new world order. They have combined resources to create a new IMF that will compete with the old western IMF to loan money to areas like Africa and South America. They will control the debt that fires those engines. Russia, China and India (almost 50% of the world population) have entered into formal agreements to use their own currencies to pay for resources from each other. They are excluding the US dollar from their market place as an economic foundation. Making it obsolete. They are reaching deeply into Africa in fierce competition with the US to develop that continent as a place to do business. They are quickly becoming the savior for many South American countries who have tapped out their debt in the Old Club and need a rescue line.
Of course, when one grows the other dies, and the other would be the western world, or the "Old Club". Our ability to consume and pay debt has over reached its maximum. That is reflected in the over valued prices we pay for everything compared to what would be paid for the same object in the Club. In some European countries that has led to such things as inter-generational mortgages on homes. In the US it led to the "housing bubble" in 2008. The price we pay for fuel, compared to the actual price per barrel on the international market, is a good indicator of how skewed the economic reality is. While world oil prices plummet, prices at the pump don't. They stay artificially high. The same can be said for the stock markets. They are valued at more than their 2008 pre-crash worth, despite the indebtedness/under-performance of the corporations listed on them. In other words, there is a space between where they should be at in pure economic terms, and where they exist today. An artificial bubble. An artificial economy. Prices inflated to try and maintain our way of life, our government coffers, and our debt.
While there was only one game in town, that game of artificial economy could be maintained to one degree or another. There would be cyclical recessions to try and balance debt vs income vs prices from time to time, but the system could carry on. But, more dollars printed to maintain that growth created inflation in prices.Our system continued to grow fed on inflation rather than real economic wealth. We created a society based on the artificial. Now we are facing a New Club that, for the most part, will not. As the two realities start to compete the Old Club will lose market share for its products, and a glut will create deflation.
As sales slide, and corporations within the Old Club try to adjust their production downward, each country's GDP begins to shrink - in other words deflate. That leads to serious consequences for an economic order built on growth fueled by debt. A good current example of this is Germany's recent slide. Germany is the economic engine of Europe, and as its GDP continues to fall so do the hopes of the rest of the continent. Another good example is long term bond costs. Muskrat Falls financing was secured for 50 years at less then 3% interest. Indicative that the banks understand what is coming. What else can explain that length of commitment for such a small return on investment. Perhaps one of the most clear examples of things to come is the Brazilian company Rio Tinto. While North American iron ore mines close, scale back or simply don't develop, Rio Tinto is increasing production by 25%. All these corporations compete on the international market, yet they have two starkly different approaches. Perhaps the key to understanding this is one corporation is in a BRIC country, and a strong m,ember of the new club, while the others are stuck in the old.
There are signs all around us if we choose to really see them. The world is changing - for the better for some, and the opposite for others. Reality, or deflation as a measure of it, is coming sooner rather than later. There is really no way for governments to prepare for it financially. Instead, and perhaps a very real indication of intent, police forces through out the western world have been armed like military organizations. Like the banks, our governments see the inevitable deflation of our economies, and understand the social chaos that must follow. At that point order will take precedence over rights. It will be a new world for the Old Club.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Lest We Forget
Lest we forget. That is the motto of the last two world wars. The question could be : "Lest we forget what?" Is it the men and women who died, were wounded and forever scarred by war that we are meant not to forget? Not likely, in the sense that we never knew them. Some of us had loved ones in the war, in my case a father, but I would never forget him in any case. Is it the mass destruction, the slaughter of civilians, the absolute firepower that these armies unleashed that we are meant to forget? I would argue it's all of these things, summed up in one word - sacrifice.
But, what was that sacrifice for? In different countries there were as many different reasons. For the Russians it was the "Great Patriotic War". For the British Empire it was "Empire War", and for the Americans it was the "Mess with us and die War". In the sixty odd years since the last world war we commonly see that struggle as the "War for Freedom". Freedom meaning our society would never become a police state as was the case with Nazi Germany. Personal freedom, democracy, and the rule of law would guide our nation. We prided ourselves on this, and the average person on the streets never questions it should be any other way.
Then, in a murderous, chaotic moment at the National War Monument, and then Parliament Hill, all that came into question. Or did it? As a young Corporal lay dying near the tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and as the young attacker who caused his death died in a hail of bullets in the Hall of Honour, national media were already saying "This changes Canada forever". If that sounds familiar it's likely your mind wondering back to the events of "911" and the rhetoric that came afterward from the politicians: the world is changed; America has changed; the Patriot Act; Guantanamo; wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; making the world safe for democracy; you are with us or against us. Yes, the ghosts of 911 immediately sprang to life in the Canadian national media.
But, is that really true? Perhaps I missed it? At what point did the Canadian people agree to abandon their freedom for "security"? Did we agree to forfeit our freedom that was guaranteed by the deaths of over 100,000 Canadians in two world wars over the deaths of two soldiers at the hands of two now dead ISIS sympathizers? Is our freedom, our way of life really that weak? Are we that insecure? Are we prepared to capitulate and surrender the gift of freedom, earned by the blood of our ancestors on foreign battle fields, so that we may know what it is to not live in a police state?
After the attack in Ottawa by a lone gunman the military was ordered not to wear their uniforms anywhere in the country while off base. Then, a day later, the decision was overturned. It was an immediate surrender of pride, freedom, and honour by politicians in a panic. An over reaction. What the might of Nazi Germany could not do, one lone gunman achieved - if only briefly. The national media, particularly the state-owned CBC, immediately began the call for restricting our freedom to our Parliament and greater state intrusions into our personal lives. All in the name of security. All in the name of the "greater good". Just like 911. Hopefully, that will face the same fate as the order not to wear uniforms.
The bigger lesson in all of this is just how ready "the powers to be" are to sacrifice our rights in the name of security. It was almost like they were looking for an excuse to do that, and once presented, they quickly grasped it. However, they ignore one very crucial thing. The blood of 100,000 dead earned us the right to keep that freedom. The hundreds of thousands of men and women wounded and altered by their war experience for life earned us that right. Rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution now. Freedom that is not subject to political whims or expediency. Freedom that is eternal as the flame that burns on Parliament Hill. It is paid for in full. It makes us who we are. Without it we are nothing.
The lesson for people like ISIS is that Canada can be rocked by the death of two soldiers at home. That the collective Canadian psyche is so weak that a lone gunman can bring it down by one moment of madness. Far from deterring another attack by the likes of ISIS, Canada's response must be mightily encouraging to them. Therein lies the danger. We are showing weakness. After all, ISIS doesn't care about our societal values. It cares about our personal values. It cares that we insist on freedom and equality for women, as an example. There are many others. The point is, they want to change us more than change our government. If we allow this attack to in any way alter us then they have won. When we should be giving a Churchill-like "some chicken, some neck", we instead give a Chamberlain-like "peace in our time".
Appeasing, even rewarding people like ISIS with the degradation of our freedom speaks more about us than them. It says we are weak, scared, and without courage of conviction. It says we do not find strength in the fields of Canadian crosses oversees, but rather we scurry to whatever system that will allow us to freely shop at Walmart. It says our society, and our belief system, is based on convenience rather than principle. Perhaps people like ISIS already suspect this about us. Perhaps it's even true. But, it doesn't have to be. We don't have to stand on a cold highway, and awkwardly (even bizarrely) sing O Canada and clap as if we were at a hockey game as a lone hearse carries a dead soldier to a funeral home. Perhaps we could stand in steely silence, honour the man's sacrifice, and swear to ourselves and him that we won't trade off the freedom given by the men and women whose monument he had guarded. That would be the ultimate statement. The strength of our character and values was tested in two world wars. We prevailed. That mantle was given to us. Lest we forget.
But, what was that sacrifice for? In different countries there were as many different reasons. For the Russians it was the "Great Patriotic War". For the British Empire it was "Empire War", and for the Americans it was the "Mess with us and die War". In the sixty odd years since the last world war we commonly see that struggle as the "War for Freedom". Freedom meaning our society would never become a police state as was the case with Nazi Germany. Personal freedom, democracy, and the rule of law would guide our nation. We prided ourselves on this, and the average person on the streets never questions it should be any other way.
Then, in a murderous, chaotic moment at the National War Monument, and then Parliament Hill, all that came into question. Or did it? As a young Corporal lay dying near the tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and as the young attacker who caused his death died in a hail of bullets in the Hall of Honour, national media were already saying "This changes Canada forever". If that sounds familiar it's likely your mind wondering back to the events of "911" and the rhetoric that came afterward from the politicians: the world is changed; America has changed; the Patriot Act; Guantanamo; wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; making the world safe for democracy; you are with us or against us. Yes, the ghosts of 911 immediately sprang to life in the Canadian national media.
But, is that really true? Perhaps I missed it? At what point did the Canadian people agree to abandon their freedom for "security"? Did we agree to forfeit our freedom that was guaranteed by the deaths of over 100,000 Canadians in two world wars over the deaths of two soldiers at the hands of two now dead ISIS sympathizers? Is our freedom, our way of life really that weak? Are we that insecure? Are we prepared to capitulate and surrender the gift of freedom, earned by the blood of our ancestors on foreign battle fields, so that we may know what it is to not live in a police state?
After the attack in Ottawa by a lone gunman the military was ordered not to wear their uniforms anywhere in the country while off base. Then, a day later, the decision was overturned. It was an immediate surrender of pride, freedom, and honour by politicians in a panic. An over reaction. What the might of Nazi Germany could not do, one lone gunman achieved - if only briefly. The national media, particularly the state-owned CBC, immediately began the call for restricting our freedom to our Parliament and greater state intrusions into our personal lives. All in the name of security. All in the name of the "greater good". Just like 911. Hopefully, that will face the same fate as the order not to wear uniforms.
The bigger lesson in all of this is just how ready "the powers to be" are to sacrifice our rights in the name of security. It was almost like they were looking for an excuse to do that, and once presented, they quickly grasped it. However, they ignore one very crucial thing. The blood of 100,000 dead earned us the right to keep that freedom. The hundreds of thousands of men and women wounded and altered by their war experience for life earned us that right. Rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution now. Freedom that is not subject to political whims or expediency. Freedom that is eternal as the flame that burns on Parliament Hill. It is paid for in full. It makes us who we are. Without it we are nothing.
The lesson for people like ISIS is that Canada can be rocked by the death of two soldiers at home. That the collective Canadian psyche is so weak that a lone gunman can bring it down by one moment of madness. Far from deterring another attack by the likes of ISIS, Canada's response must be mightily encouraging to them. Therein lies the danger. We are showing weakness. After all, ISIS doesn't care about our societal values. It cares about our personal values. It cares that we insist on freedom and equality for women, as an example. There are many others. The point is, they want to change us more than change our government. If we allow this attack to in any way alter us then they have won. When we should be giving a Churchill-like "some chicken, some neck", we instead give a Chamberlain-like "peace in our time".
Appeasing, even rewarding people like ISIS with the degradation of our freedom speaks more about us than them. It says we are weak, scared, and without courage of conviction. It says we do not find strength in the fields of Canadian crosses oversees, but rather we scurry to whatever system that will allow us to freely shop at Walmart. It says our society, and our belief system, is based on convenience rather than principle. Perhaps people like ISIS already suspect this about us. Perhaps it's even true. But, it doesn't have to be. We don't have to stand on a cold highway, and awkwardly (even bizarrely) sing O Canada and clap as if we were at a hockey game as a lone hearse carries a dead soldier to a funeral home. Perhaps we could stand in steely silence, honour the man's sacrifice, and swear to ourselves and him that we won't trade off the freedom given by the men and women whose monument he had guarded. That would be the ultimate statement. The strength of our character and values was tested in two world wars. We prevailed. That mantle was given to us. Lest we forget.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)