After the 911 attacks on the US, then President Bush declared the right to preemptive military strikes against countries before they actually committed an aggression against the United States. At the time, and until this day, very little attention has been paid to the "Bush Doctrine" announced back in those panicky days. Yet, those simple words have transformed the world. Diplomacy died on the vine of National Interest. International law became passe. So it was then with the US wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, so it is now almost everywhere in the world.
The most recent case, unfolding as I write, is the military blockading, bombing and soon to be invasion of Yemen. Ditto for Canada's newly announced policy of bombing within Syria. It was only a matter of months ago the federal government stated it would not send war planes into Syria without either a UN mandate, or an invitation from the Syrian government. Now, we will, and the rationale is section 51 of the UN Charter, and the declaration that Syria is either unable or unwilling to control the conflict within its own borders. That somehow, by bombing ISIS in Syria is a key to Canadian self-defence. It's true that ISIS inspired lone wolves have committed two acts of terror on Canadian soil resulting in two innocent deaths. It's also true that many hundreds more die or are maimed in car accidents daily in Canada. Somehow the idea that little black pajama men with daggers will swim to Canada enmasse to decapitate citizens is, well, just foolish. Yet, it's all possible under the Bush Doctrine. The doctrine of punch first, ask questions later.
Now a similar, and predictable confrontation is playing out just south of the Suez Canal in Yemen - for the moment. As Iran and Saudi Arabia play out their mutual hatred of each other on a regional basis, the Bush Doctrine unfolds yet again. Saudi claims to perceive an urgent need to restore to power a Sunni president, as the legitimately elected head of Yemen. Saudi is not exactly known for its zeal for democracy. What Saudi is known for is a draconian, barbaric oil state, that is ruled by one family - no elections.. no descent. A ruthless, dark place where no democratic fruit is allowed to grow. The truth is, quite simply put, Saudi refuses to allow the Shia Houthi, who are aligned with Iran, to take over at the expense of their guy. International law be dammed. The son of the Bush Doctrine.
When then president Bush declared the US's right to act unilaterally in world affairs, the US recreated the jungle. It took mankind back to the dark ages, only this time with weapons of mass destruction. It removed the need to be responsible and restrained in the exercise of power. It opened the Pandora's Box of "National Interest". As the saying goes, "two can play that game", and in the context of the world, many can play that game. That is exactly what we see unfolding before our very eyes. In every continent in the world - excepting Australia. In every "hot spot" in the world. Even within countries. We don't have to obey rules. We make the rules. Might is right, and we will prevail. Welcome back to the Stone Age. This is the state of our world today. A place where mutual respect is as barren as the desserts of Saudi Arabia, and where the innocent blood flows as it has throughout our history. We never learn that power exercised without restraint is poison to us all.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Sunday, March 22, 2015
The West's Shame
There is something so bizarre, so inhumane about Western countries boycotting the parade for the 70th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Germany in World War II that I just had to write on it. Recently, the prime minister of the United Kingdom announced he will not be attending the parade. Previous to that, countries like Germany and the United States had announced the same. It's only a parade you say? No it's more than that.
The Soviet Union sacrificed 25 million people to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II. A sacrifice beyond imagination, and far, far greater than all the countries fighting Nazi Germany combined. In comparison, the Holocaust, which is rightly remembered annually, claimed the lives of six million people of the Jewish faith. These are really the two true tragedy's of World War II unleashed on the world by Nazi Germany. The stories of Soviet soldiers advancing without weapons to pickup the rifle of the next dead soldier are well known. The bloodbath of Stalingrad, the siege of Leningrad, the millions of Soviet soldiers killed and captured (only to then die in POW camps) during the early days of the German invasion, and so on, all markers of the brutality of man against his own, stand large in the history of the world. In fact, the German invasion of the Soviet Union stands as the largest military battle in the history of man.
Yet, western leaders have decided to not attend the parade that is meant to honour that sacrifice. When Britain announced it would not attend, well, that's the straw that broke the camel's back frankly. Of all the countries in the world, Britain was saved by the massive waves of young Soviet men and woman that bled the German army white. Hitler would have crushed Britain in short order if he had not diverted millions of German men to the invasion of the Soviet Union. Crucially, the diversion of aircraft, fighters and bombers, to the Soviet front saved Britain from the entire annihilation of a full blown, continuous air campaign, and the subsequent naval invasion that would certainly have occurred. In reality, the western allies left Stalin almost alone in Europe to battle the Nazi's, and take the majority of the casualties in doing so. By the time D-Day finally arrived, the German army and air force was only a shadow of it's former self as it existed in 1941. As bad and hard as it was for the allies to march east through Europe to Berlin, without the Soviet people's sacrifice, it would have never happened.
It's a place of honour in human history. To quarrel with that is to go beyond ignorance. To quarrel with that is the hateful and arrogant bastion of the very seeds that caused World War II in the first place. And now, as if history is repeating itself, Western leaders have entered that bastion of ignorance and arrogance to punish Russia for the Ukrainian civil war. By contrast, Russian president Putin, despite the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, attended the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings in France last year. He was given the proverbial cold shoulder by western leaders, yet he subjected himself to that, in honour of the sacrifice of the men of Canada, Britain and the United States. He did not ignore the history or the price in blood of that action. He honoured it. He put the sacrifice ahead of his political position, and it could even be said his personal shunning. Now that the time is here to do the same for the Soviet Union's dead, we cannot bring ourselves to do the same.
What that says about us is really quite obvious. It means we haven't learned the lessons of history. That our political leadership has become so petty, so detached from historical reality, that it attempts to rewrite the history of 25 million souls. That is the danger of all of this. Russians don't really need the West to honour their sacrifice. They know it all too well. It's the West that needs to honour that sacrifice so it can clearly see the dangers of war on a scale far more destructive than anything it experienced on the western front, or anywhere else in history. Poland started this train rolling by refusing to invite the Russian president to the Holocaust remembrance at Auschwitz last year. This despite the fact that the Soviet army liberated all of Poland, and specifically Auschwitz from German armies.
The actions of our western politicians say more about us than the Russians could ever say themselves. They have portrayed us as people who refuse to honour the dead, those that gave their lives in another time to defeat a tyrant bent on world domination, and in doing so dishonour those men and women. As the son of a young man, training in England, fighting in North Africa, Italy, Holland, and Germany through those tumultuous years of war and senseless slaughter, I recognize the Soviet sacrifice that probably saved my Dad's life. How could you not? Yet, that is exactly what our politicians are doing today. You don't have to be a lover of this country, or that country to recognize and honour grave human injustice committed on a massive scale. You just have to be humane, and subordinate your own bias in the remembrance of the fallen. Is that really so hard? Isn't that what is expected of us all? Wouldn't we expect that from our children? I've never been so ashamed of the actions of our governments than I am now with the boycott of that parade in Moscow.
The Soviet Union sacrificed 25 million people to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II. A sacrifice beyond imagination, and far, far greater than all the countries fighting Nazi Germany combined. In comparison, the Holocaust, which is rightly remembered annually, claimed the lives of six million people of the Jewish faith. These are really the two true tragedy's of World War II unleashed on the world by Nazi Germany. The stories of Soviet soldiers advancing without weapons to pickup the rifle of the next dead soldier are well known. The bloodbath of Stalingrad, the siege of Leningrad, the millions of Soviet soldiers killed and captured (only to then die in POW camps) during the early days of the German invasion, and so on, all markers of the brutality of man against his own, stand large in the history of the world. In fact, the German invasion of the Soviet Union stands as the largest military battle in the history of man.
Yet, western leaders have decided to not attend the parade that is meant to honour that sacrifice. When Britain announced it would not attend, well, that's the straw that broke the camel's back frankly. Of all the countries in the world, Britain was saved by the massive waves of young Soviet men and woman that bled the German army white. Hitler would have crushed Britain in short order if he had not diverted millions of German men to the invasion of the Soviet Union. Crucially, the diversion of aircraft, fighters and bombers, to the Soviet front saved Britain from the entire annihilation of a full blown, continuous air campaign, and the subsequent naval invasion that would certainly have occurred. In reality, the western allies left Stalin almost alone in Europe to battle the Nazi's, and take the majority of the casualties in doing so. By the time D-Day finally arrived, the German army and air force was only a shadow of it's former self as it existed in 1941. As bad and hard as it was for the allies to march east through Europe to Berlin, without the Soviet people's sacrifice, it would have never happened.
It's a place of honour in human history. To quarrel with that is to go beyond ignorance. To quarrel with that is the hateful and arrogant bastion of the very seeds that caused World War II in the first place. And now, as if history is repeating itself, Western leaders have entered that bastion of ignorance and arrogance to punish Russia for the Ukrainian civil war. By contrast, Russian president Putin, despite the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, attended the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings in France last year. He was given the proverbial cold shoulder by western leaders, yet he subjected himself to that, in honour of the sacrifice of the men of Canada, Britain and the United States. He did not ignore the history or the price in blood of that action. He honoured it. He put the sacrifice ahead of his political position, and it could even be said his personal shunning. Now that the time is here to do the same for the Soviet Union's dead, we cannot bring ourselves to do the same.
What that says about us is really quite obvious. It means we haven't learned the lessons of history. That our political leadership has become so petty, so detached from historical reality, that it attempts to rewrite the history of 25 million souls. That is the danger of all of this. Russians don't really need the West to honour their sacrifice. They know it all too well. It's the West that needs to honour that sacrifice so it can clearly see the dangers of war on a scale far more destructive than anything it experienced on the western front, or anywhere else in history. Poland started this train rolling by refusing to invite the Russian president to the Holocaust remembrance at Auschwitz last year. This despite the fact that the Soviet army liberated all of Poland, and specifically Auschwitz from German armies.
The actions of our western politicians say more about us than the Russians could ever say themselves. They have portrayed us as people who refuse to honour the dead, those that gave their lives in another time to defeat a tyrant bent on world domination, and in doing so dishonour those men and women. As the son of a young man, training in England, fighting in North Africa, Italy, Holland, and Germany through those tumultuous years of war and senseless slaughter, I recognize the Soviet sacrifice that probably saved my Dad's life. How could you not? Yet, that is exactly what our politicians are doing today. You don't have to be a lover of this country, or that country to recognize and honour grave human injustice committed on a massive scale. You just have to be humane, and subordinate your own bias in the remembrance of the fallen. Is that really so hard? Isn't that what is expected of us all? Wouldn't we expect that from our children? I've never been so ashamed of the actions of our governments than I am now with the boycott of that parade in Moscow.
Monday, March 16, 2015
The Oil Overdose
Oil is done as a "gold" standard. "Black Gold" is now more like "Black Coal". It's everywhere and plentiful. Many countries in the world, and provinces in Canada (like my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador) have bet the farm on unending oil wealth to fuel their growth. Some, like Norway, have banked all those petro dollars into a trillion dollar savings fund that essentially makes every Norwegian a millionaire. Others have used the big bucks to build massive militaries - like Russia; Saudi Arabia; and Iran to name a few. The old black gold has been a God send for those that have it, but those days have come and gone.
Some economists are predicting a relatively short turn around for oil prices - somewhere between a year or two. Very few economists have ventured into the permanently depressed price projection. So, does the evidence support a short term downturn or a fundamental, long-term decline in the price of crude oil? One of the few interesting trends in oil, that has not been discussed much, is the narrowing of the price for oil between the benchmarks of West Texas Crude (WTI) and Brent Crude. Generally, Brent Crude is a world price for oil, while the WTI is the American price. Not too long ago there was a 20% difference in the two benchmarks - WTI being the cheapest. Today that gap has narrowed to the point of near parity. What does that indicate? In two words - European deflation. The European economy is spiraling downward with massive unemployment in places like Spain and Greece, and negative bond issues in places like Germany and Switzerland. In effect, Europe as an economic entity is tapped out.
Then there is the suppression of oil exports into the world oil trade. Most notably Iran. Iran has been severely restrained from exporting oil due to US led sanctions. It has some of the largest oil reserves in the world, and is strategically located to send that oil to market at a low cost. In effect Iran's oil has already been priced out of the market price. Then there is Libya. It has been torn apart by civil war like conditions, inter-tribal warfare, and now Islamic warfare. Its oil exports have been essentially removed from the market. Nigeria is falling into a similar position. Ditto for Iraq, In other words, the glut of oil in the world is really only a small measure of what that glut would look like if and when these countries come back into the market in a significant way.
There is the major factor of new discoveries and technology to consider. A massive oil and gas field has been discovered off the coasts of Israel and Gaza, and is as yet untapped. There are major oil plays in the Kurdistan region of Iraq and to some extent Turkey that remain well underutilized. The dueling technologies of fracking and offshore sub sea "tentical"lines have revolutionized the ability to recover oil from previously trapped locations.
In other words, there is just too much oil in the world, for the foreseeable future, to warrant a scarcity price. The current prices really reflect almost a Debeers - type strategy. Debeers of course controls the world diamond market and ensures that prices remain high by restricting volume in the market. A similar trend is happening with oil. In reality, oil should be at $15-25 per barrel US. Prices above this reflect artificial interventions in the market place, which cushion the fall for many governments that have built societies based on $100 + oil. My province is no different. In fact, even at the current inflated prices, Newfoundland and Labrador looks to be taking a 15-20% hit on its annual budget. Addressing these issues of revenue loss for governments is guaranteed to add further to deflation as consumer confidence crashes and the internal markets realign to economic reality. The same can be said for countries like Russia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, etc.
Predicting the future is a tough task indeed. But, as the CSI saying goes: "people lie, the evidence doesn't." In order to see that future we need to understand demographic trends, political/trade trends, supply and demand trends, etc and synthesize them into one living organism (our world). It's abundantly clear that artificial barriers, primarily caused by speculators in the trading markets, are becoming more and more redundant. As the world economy deflates, which it is, those artificial barriers to the true market value of oil fall away. Expect to see oil decline as the world economy deflates. They go hand in hand, with one racing before the other. Unfortunately, for people like ours that have been subjected to "good times" spending and zero savings, the end of the oil bounty is the end of the party. The government has suffered an oil overdose, and we let them.
Some economists are predicting a relatively short turn around for oil prices - somewhere between a year or two. Very few economists have ventured into the permanently depressed price projection. So, does the evidence support a short term downturn or a fundamental, long-term decline in the price of crude oil? One of the few interesting trends in oil, that has not been discussed much, is the narrowing of the price for oil between the benchmarks of West Texas Crude (WTI) and Brent Crude. Generally, Brent Crude is a world price for oil, while the WTI is the American price. Not too long ago there was a 20% difference in the two benchmarks - WTI being the cheapest. Today that gap has narrowed to the point of near parity. What does that indicate? In two words - European deflation. The European economy is spiraling downward with massive unemployment in places like Spain and Greece, and negative bond issues in places like Germany and Switzerland. In effect, Europe as an economic entity is tapped out.
Then there is the suppression of oil exports into the world oil trade. Most notably Iran. Iran has been severely restrained from exporting oil due to US led sanctions. It has some of the largest oil reserves in the world, and is strategically located to send that oil to market at a low cost. In effect Iran's oil has already been priced out of the market price. Then there is Libya. It has been torn apart by civil war like conditions, inter-tribal warfare, and now Islamic warfare. Its oil exports have been essentially removed from the market. Nigeria is falling into a similar position. Ditto for Iraq, In other words, the glut of oil in the world is really only a small measure of what that glut would look like if and when these countries come back into the market in a significant way.
There is the major factor of new discoveries and technology to consider. A massive oil and gas field has been discovered off the coasts of Israel and Gaza, and is as yet untapped. There are major oil plays in the Kurdistan region of Iraq and to some extent Turkey that remain well underutilized. The dueling technologies of fracking and offshore sub sea "tentical"lines have revolutionized the ability to recover oil from previously trapped locations.
In other words, there is just too much oil in the world, for the foreseeable future, to warrant a scarcity price. The current prices really reflect almost a Debeers - type strategy. Debeers of course controls the world diamond market and ensures that prices remain high by restricting volume in the market. A similar trend is happening with oil. In reality, oil should be at $15-25 per barrel US. Prices above this reflect artificial interventions in the market place, which cushion the fall for many governments that have built societies based on $100 + oil. My province is no different. In fact, even at the current inflated prices, Newfoundland and Labrador looks to be taking a 15-20% hit on its annual budget. Addressing these issues of revenue loss for governments is guaranteed to add further to deflation as consumer confidence crashes and the internal markets realign to economic reality. The same can be said for countries like Russia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, etc.
Predicting the future is a tough task indeed. But, as the CSI saying goes: "people lie, the evidence doesn't." In order to see that future we need to understand demographic trends, political/trade trends, supply and demand trends, etc and synthesize them into one living organism (our world). It's abundantly clear that artificial barriers, primarily caused by speculators in the trading markets, are becoming more and more redundant. As the world economy deflates, which it is, those artificial barriers to the true market value of oil fall away. Expect to see oil decline as the world economy deflates. They go hand in hand, with one racing before the other. Unfortunately, for people like ours that have been subjected to "good times" spending and zero savings, the end of the oil bounty is the end of the party. The government has suffered an oil overdose, and we let them.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
World Economy War One
If World War One was the first time humanity witnessed the brutal, inhumane destruction of a generation by the tools of war, then what we are witnessing today is the first of a potentially similar world economic war. Now, many would argue that the Cold War was a world-scale economic war that communism lost vs. capitalism. However, that would be a simplification of both the means and the ends. For example, my take on the end of the Cold War is that Russia and China merely conducted a strategic withdrawl to regroup, approach the issue in an economic way as opposed to military-type way, to end up where we are today.
Whatever your take on that might be, the bottom line is the world is dividing into two economic camps - one dominated by the US and one dominated by a Russia/China alliance. Economically, the Russo/Sino alliance has all the momentum and strategic strength to win this match hands down. I covered the bones of that here and here . Today it seems all these things are coming to a head - rapidly. It appears the US is not prepared to allow the new Eurasia alliance to peacefully transform the capitalist system to its needs and benefit. In other words, the US is not prepared to peacefully allow others to play its own game on it. That, simply put, sums it up.
Two years ago I had a close chat with my brother on these very events now transpiring. At the time he asked what I saw the outcome being of a trade war like we have today. I said that depended mostly on the Americans. Would they play nice or go "cowboy"? If they went cowboy, I explained, then prepare for war. It seems that's where we are at. Up until now most of the American actions have been by proxy. That is to say, the US has covertly, and overtly funded and armed certain groups, in certain regions, to take on certain governments so as to reduce Eurasian regional influence. Probably the most notorious example at the moment is the Syrian war, and the resulting birth of ISIS. It strongly resembles the CIA funded war in Afghanistan, and the subsequent birth of Al-Qaeda. Both were attempts to undermine/topple Russian interests covertly. Both resulted in the birth of organized Islamic groups dedicated to even harsher economic and cultural separation of the region from US influence. Ditto transpiring in Libya, portions of Africa, etc.
The game became very real when the US decided to intervene in a somewhat similar fashion in Ukraine. Having overthrown the democratically elected, although unpopular, president of Ukraine, the US quickly stepped in to organize everything from its government to its economic bail-out. In other words, the US took on Ukraine as a client state on the very border of Russia. Hence the whole "cowboy" thing. A very dangerous and irresponsible "in-your-face" move by the US that opened Pandora's Box. The Russians responded, as you knew they would, and so it goes. The major difference here is the US are no longer playing games with some two-bit dictator far a flung. No, this time they have gone directly to the fence of their enemy. A nuclear armed enemy. An enemy that is as advanced in every way as the US. One of two major players in the economic alliance that aims to reduce US economic power, and thus influence, throughout the world. No more dancing around proxies. The powers to be are in each other's face.
So where do we go from here. It seems fairly obvious the US, or any western country's population has failed to cotton on to where they are being led. Not a clue. Barely any coverage in the media, except that this terrorist or that terrorist is a threat to this or that nation's security. It's as if men in black pajamas and cloaked women in similarly coloured get ups will be throwing themselves, wave after wave, onto the shores of western countries. Any reference to Russia is cloaked in similar paranoia and fear. China is currently being only nibbled at on the fringes, because frankly the West can't afford to upset China financially. So, in effect, people in the West are sleepwalking into certain financial disaster, and possibly worse. A scenario that has repeated itself through out history, and the result has always been the same - tragedy for the human race.
The truth is, we can only project what might be the result of an all out world economic war. We can only surmise, if we dare to, what catastrophic effects would be heaped on our families, our communities, and our countries. Why can't we see it clearer? The easy answer is: we have never witnessed it before like this. We've seen depressions, and recessions. However, we've never seen complete destruction of economic systems. That's something that is hard to wrap the mind around for most. The best analogy perhaps is the First World War. Slaughter had never happened before on this scale.The men left for the front lines in a hurry in 1914. Up for the challenge and afraid to miss the big show. They found out all too quickly that the massive slaughter that occurred on those front lines was not any kind of great struggle for a higher cause. What they found was humanity turning on itself in a global slaughter of a generation. Four years later, after unimaginable horror and destruction, the phrase was "never again". Eleven years later mankind did it all over again. When that one was over we had a new phrase: " Lest we Forget". Sometimes ... often times, it seems that our desire to dominate each other is never fully satisfied.
Whatever your take on that might be, the bottom line is the world is dividing into two economic camps - one dominated by the US and one dominated by a Russia/China alliance. Economically, the Russo/Sino alliance has all the momentum and strategic strength to win this match hands down. I covered the bones of that here and here . Today it seems all these things are coming to a head - rapidly. It appears the US is not prepared to allow the new Eurasia alliance to peacefully transform the capitalist system to its needs and benefit. In other words, the US is not prepared to peacefully allow others to play its own game on it. That, simply put, sums it up.
Two years ago I had a close chat with my brother on these very events now transpiring. At the time he asked what I saw the outcome being of a trade war like we have today. I said that depended mostly on the Americans. Would they play nice or go "cowboy"? If they went cowboy, I explained, then prepare for war. It seems that's where we are at. Up until now most of the American actions have been by proxy. That is to say, the US has covertly, and overtly funded and armed certain groups, in certain regions, to take on certain governments so as to reduce Eurasian regional influence. Probably the most notorious example at the moment is the Syrian war, and the resulting birth of ISIS. It strongly resembles the CIA funded war in Afghanistan, and the subsequent birth of Al-Qaeda. Both were attempts to undermine/topple Russian interests covertly. Both resulted in the birth of organized Islamic groups dedicated to even harsher economic and cultural separation of the region from US influence. Ditto transpiring in Libya, portions of Africa, etc.
The game became very real when the US decided to intervene in a somewhat similar fashion in Ukraine. Having overthrown the democratically elected, although unpopular, president of Ukraine, the US quickly stepped in to organize everything from its government to its economic bail-out. In other words, the US took on Ukraine as a client state on the very border of Russia. Hence the whole "cowboy" thing. A very dangerous and irresponsible "in-your-face" move by the US that opened Pandora's Box. The Russians responded, as you knew they would, and so it goes. The major difference here is the US are no longer playing games with some two-bit dictator far a flung. No, this time they have gone directly to the fence of their enemy. A nuclear armed enemy. An enemy that is as advanced in every way as the US. One of two major players in the economic alliance that aims to reduce US economic power, and thus influence, throughout the world. No more dancing around proxies. The powers to be are in each other's face.
So where do we go from here. It seems fairly obvious the US, or any western country's population has failed to cotton on to where they are being led. Not a clue. Barely any coverage in the media, except that this terrorist or that terrorist is a threat to this or that nation's security. It's as if men in black pajamas and cloaked women in similarly coloured get ups will be throwing themselves, wave after wave, onto the shores of western countries. Any reference to Russia is cloaked in similar paranoia and fear. China is currently being only nibbled at on the fringes, because frankly the West can't afford to upset China financially. So, in effect, people in the West are sleepwalking into certain financial disaster, and possibly worse. A scenario that has repeated itself through out history, and the result has always been the same - tragedy for the human race.
The truth is, we can only project what might be the result of an all out world economic war. We can only surmise, if we dare to, what catastrophic effects would be heaped on our families, our communities, and our countries. Why can't we see it clearer? The easy answer is: we have never witnessed it before like this. We've seen depressions, and recessions. However, we've never seen complete destruction of economic systems. That's something that is hard to wrap the mind around for most. The best analogy perhaps is the First World War. Slaughter had never happened before on this scale.The men left for the front lines in a hurry in 1914. Up for the challenge and afraid to miss the big show. They found out all too quickly that the massive slaughter that occurred on those front lines was not any kind of great struggle for a higher cause. What they found was humanity turning on itself in a global slaughter of a generation. Four years later, after unimaginable horror and destruction, the phrase was "never again". Eleven years later mankind did it all over again. When that one was over we had a new phrase: " Lest we Forget". Sometimes ... often times, it seems that our desire to dominate each other is never fully satisfied.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Russia's Weakness is the West's Gain
There was a time, back when, that the Soviet Union was feared and respected. That fear and respect created and maintained what we refer to as the Cold War. It divided the world in a sense, but it also provided a peculiar sense of stability. Each side was aware of where the lines not to cross were located, and neither side dared make a serious attempt to undermine them. There was no question of a strong, forceful Soviet response. Therein lies the problem for modern day Russia.
To be frank, Russia's handling of the Ukraine crisis on its own border displays the sort of weakness one would normally associate with the bluster of North Korea. Strong words but no action to back it up. Russian special forces quickly moved into Crimea before the West could stop them. But that was pretty much it. The Crimean assault was really a "sneaky" move rather than a forceful move of principle. There was no grand declaration of principle by the Russian government, other than it would defend the rights of Russian speaking people's - which it quickly abandoned in Donetsk and Luhansk republics prolonging the war there and massively increasing civilian and military casualties. Russian support for the separatist forces in East Ukraine was again of the "sneaky" variety. Weapons, ammunition, advisers, and some special forces. A grey war if you will.
The problem with a grey war is that each side is left with the ability to interpret it as it will. In other words, Ukraine can scream Russia is invading it, while Russia can respond that it has no troops there. There is no serious projection of power, and serious statement made to the other side. They are playing "footsies" with each other. The message is that of weakness. Russia is being dictated to by the West and simply responding defensively. It does not project the image of an equal. It actually reinforces Obama's arrogant comment that Russia is a "regional power". Now, Russia is not a regional power, to be clear. Iran is a regional power, as is Saudi Arabia. Russia is a world power. But, Russia's weak response to Western infiltration of the buffer zone known as Ukraine tends to back Obama's message.
Another well publicized event took place in Estonia where us mechanized troops paraded within 300 meters of the Russian border. Ditto for similar flippant moves by Lithuania and even Finland. Now, despite prohibitions against foreign troops in accordance with the Minsk Accord, the United States is sending a full airborne battalion to Ukraine to "train" Ukraine forces. Britain is sending 75 troops for a similar mission. The response from Russia is...nothing.
If Russia wants the role of super power in the world, or even at the very least top dog in its own neighborhood, it needs to seriously project strength. That means incorporating a "doctrine" which will be defended at any time and any place. The doctrine must be in strict defence of its sphere of influence - otherwise, it doesn't have one. Without a sphere of influence its not even a regional power, but rather a state power. Hard to imagine for a country with the history and tradition of Russia. The truth is, the world really needs Russia to be that strong player in the world. The world desperately needs balance. The US has proven that as the sole power projecting strength in the world, it has failed to recognize the need to restrain its own ambitions. In other words, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now, we live in a world that has no stability, because the rules have been thrown out the proverbial window. That is a failure by the US, but its also a failure of countries like Russia and China.
All of this is why I support the rise of a Eurasian bloc that includes countries like Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and the like. It creates the counter balance so desperately needed in the world. Of course the Americans view this in the opposite light. So be it. All people in the world deserve a stable environment, not just Americans. In short, it's past time that Russia project serious strength. Allowing other nations to encroach on its borders is a sign of weakness, not strategy. It's being interpreted that way by its enemies as well. All of which creates a less stable world for the rest of us - including Russia.
To be frank, Russia's handling of the Ukraine crisis on its own border displays the sort of weakness one would normally associate with the bluster of North Korea. Strong words but no action to back it up. Russian special forces quickly moved into Crimea before the West could stop them. But that was pretty much it. The Crimean assault was really a "sneaky" move rather than a forceful move of principle. There was no grand declaration of principle by the Russian government, other than it would defend the rights of Russian speaking people's - which it quickly abandoned in Donetsk and Luhansk republics prolonging the war there and massively increasing civilian and military casualties. Russian support for the separatist forces in East Ukraine was again of the "sneaky" variety. Weapons, ammunition, advisers, and some special forces. A grey war if you will.
The problem with a grey war is that each side is left with the ability to interpret it as it will. In other words, Ukraine can scream Russia is invading it, while Russia can respond that it has no troops there. There is no serious projection of power, and serious statement made to the other side. They are playing "footsies" with each other. The message is that of weakness. Russia is being dictated to by the West and simply responding defensively. It does not project the image of an equal. It actually reinforces Obama's arrogant comment that Russia is a "regional power". Now, Russia is not a regional power, to be clear. Iran is a regional power, as is Saudi Arabia. Russia is a world power. But, Russia's weak response to Western infiltration of the buffer zone known as Ukraine tends to back Obama's message.
Another well publicized event took place in Estonia where us mechanized troops paraded within 300 meters of the Russian border. Ditto for similar flippant moves by Lithuania and even Finland. Now, despite prohibitions against foreign troops in accordance with the Minsk Accord, the United States is sending a full airborne battalion to Ukraine to "train" Ukraine forces. Britain is sending 75 troops for a similar mission. The response from Russia is...nothing.
If Russia wants the role of super power in the world, or even at the very least top dog in its own neighborhood, it needs to seriously project strength. That means incorporating a "doctrine" which will be defended at any time and any place. The doctrine must be in strict defence of its sphere of influence - otherwise, it doesn't have one. Without a sphere of influence its not even a regional power, but rather a state power. Hard to imagine for a country with the history and tradition of Russia. The truth is, the world really needs Russia to be that strong player in the world. The world desperately needs balance. The US has proven that as the sole power projecting strength in the world, it has failed to recognize the need to restrain its own ambitions. In other words, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now, we live in a world that has no stability, because the rules have been thrown out the proverbial window. That is a failure by the US, but its also a failure of countries like Russia and China.
All of this is why I support the rise of a Eurasian bloc that includes countries like Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and the like. It creates the counter balance so desperately needed in the world. Of course the Americans view this in the opposite light. So be it. All people in the world deserve a stable environment, not just Americans. In short, it's past time that Russia project serious strength. Allowing other nations to encroach on its borders is a sign of weakness, not strategy. It's being interpreted that way by its enemies as well. All of which creates a less stable world for the rest of us - including Russia.
Friday, February 27, 2015
Why Stratfor is Wrong on the US's Future
Stratfor, a US "geo-strategic " global intelligence company, recently published its "Decade Forecast:2015-2025" here . The essential nuts and bolts premise of this forecast is the US will remain the unchallenged global super power, while Russia, China etc fragment under social chaos and democratic forces. It even predicts Poland will become the dominant player in Europe... I kid you not. Stratfor, in all its conclusions couldn't be more wrong.
First, and probably most important, Stratfor's conclusions are based on the current system of world commerce and consumption. It brags that the US still produces 22% of the world's economic activity. That may be true, but it misses the key point - all that is about to change. Brazil, Russia, India, China (BRIC countires) are establishing a singular trading bloc among themselves. Importantly, the bloc's transactions are to conducted in respective national currencies - not pegged to the US dollar or even using the US dollar. In effect, they are recreating the world economy to the exclusion of the US and major European powers.
The practical effect of this monumental shift can be seen already today. In the last three months BRIC has announced a new world bank that will challenge the world bank (that operates in US dollars) for global supremacy in sovereign lending to countries in need, or between themselves for major projects. One such project is the new canal to be built in Nicaragua, financed by China, and guaranteed military protection by Russia. Again, neutralizing the US controlled Panama canal. Then, last week, the BRIC countries announced they would be creating a supra-national parliament that in essence would mimic the European Parliament. Also, in the last while, countries like Egypt, Greece, Argentina, Venezuela, Turkey, etc have been gravitating to the new BRIC economic bloc - not wanting to be left out in the cold.
But what does the new bloc have that will unseat US dominance? One word: markets. With the creation of the new bloc, the US and Europe will lose significant markets for their businesses. The loss of those markets cannot be replaced. The US and Europe will be faced with massive deflation in their economies as a result, large scale recession if not depression, and the very social unrest Stratfor predicts for China and Russia will instead be taking place in the US and Europe.
Here are some real numbers that tell the tale. By 2025 the populations (markets) of the new bloc will be approximately 3.1 billion. By contrast, the North American/European bloc will have a population of 1.1 billion. That is if the current western trade partnerships remain intact in the face of closed markets in the new bloc. Consider, for example, Australia, which does massive trade with China. Australia will be forced to decide whether its political/military alliance to the West outweighs its economic survival. Other countries, particularly in Europe, face the same tough choices. By way of example, France has lost a few defence contracts lately with India - Russia being the benefactor.
Here are some even more staggering numbers. In a word: debt. The ability to borrow to consume. The necessary requirement to grow and drive any economy. You can check the current numbers of all countries here . There are two sets of shocking numbers - gross government debt as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product - annual) and debt per person. The three main countries power the new bloc shake out this way:
China - 20.9% (debt vs GDP) $1,489.00 (per person)
Russia - 14.6% $2,297.00
India - 68.1% $ 946.00
The main powers in the Western block look like this:
US - 107% $58,604.00
Japan - 242 % $99,725.00
Germany - 78% $35,881.00
UK - 95% $38,938.00
The lesson here is two fold. Firstly, the debt per person and overall gross sovereign debt of the powering nations behind the new bloc are minuscule, and they are ripe for growth. Secondly, in the case of India, its large gross debt as a percentage of GDP, yet minute personal debt, means once it economy is properly stimulated its Debt vs GDP ratio will fall drastically. None of these things can be said for the Western bloc. In a phrase: the West is maxed out. It has nowhere to grow, and certainly no ability to dominate the new bloc politically, militarily, or economically. Stratfor is just plain wrong. Very wrong. Surprisingly wrong. Money and markets do not have a soul. It has no national agenda or pride. It only exists on numbers. Those numbers heavily weigh to the favour of the new BRIC alliance. Just as assuredly, they condemn the West to a time of severe and fast decline.
First, and probably most important, Stratfor's conclusions are based on the current system of world commerce and consumption. It brags that the US still produces 22% of the world's economic activity. That may be true, but it misses the key point - all that is about to change. Brazil, Russia, India, China (BRIC countires) are establishing a singular trading bloc among themselves. Importantly, the bloc's transactions are to conducted in respective national currencies - not pegged to the US dollar or even using the US dollar. In effect, they are recreating the world economy to the exclusion of the US and major European powers.
The practical effect of this monumental shift can be seen already today. In the last three months BRIC has announced a new world bank that will challenge the world bank (that operates in US dollars) for global supremacy in sovereign lending to countries in need, or between themselves for major projects. One such project is the new canal to be built in Nicaragua, financed by China, and guaranteed military protection by Russia. Again, neutralizing the US controlled Panama canal. Then, last week, the BRIC countries announced they would be creating a supra-national parliament that in essence would mimic the European Parliament. Also, in the last while, countries like Egypt, Greece, Argentina, Venezuela, Turkey, etc have been gravitating to the new BRIC economic bloc - not wanting to be left out in the cold.
But what does the new bloc have that will unseat US dominance? One word: markets. With the creation of the new bloc, the US and Europe will lose significant markets for their businesses. The loss of those markets cannot be replaced. The US and Europe will be faced with massive deflation in their economies as a result, large scale recession if not depression, and the very social unrest Stratfor predicts for China and Russia will instead be taking place in the US and Europe.
Here are some real numbers that tell the tale. By 2025 the populations (markets) of the new bloc will be approximately 3.1 billion. By contrast, the North American/European bloc will have a population of 1.1 billion. That is if the current western trade partnerships remain intact in the face of closed markets in the new bloc. Consider, for example, Australia, which does massive trade with China. Australia will be forced to decide whether its political/military alliance to the West outweighs its economic survival. Other countries, particularly in Europe, face the same tough choices. By way of example, France has lost a few defence contracts lately with India - Russia being the benefactor.
Here are some even more staggering numbers. In a word: debt. The ability to borrow to consume. The necessary requirement to grow and drive any economy. You can check the current numbers of all countries here . There are two sets of shocking numbers - gross government debt as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product - annual) and debt per person. The three main countries power the new bloc shake out this way:
China - 20.9% (debt vs GDP) $1,489.00 (per person)
Russia - 14.6% $2,297.00
India - 68.1% $ 946.00
The main powers in the Western block look like this:
US - 107% $58,604.00
Japan - 242 % $99,725.00
Germany - 78% $35,881.00
UK - 95% $38,938.00
The lesson here is two fold. Firstly, the debt per person and overall gross sovereign debt of the powering nations behind the new bloc are minuscule, and they are ripe for growth. Secondly, in the case of India, its large gross debt as a percentage of GDP, yet minute personal debt, means once it economy is properly stimulated its Debt vs GDP ratio will fall drastically. None of these things can be said for the Western bloc. In a phrase: the West is maxed out. It has nowhere to grow, and certainly no ability to dominate the new bloc politically, militarily, or economically. Stratfor is just plain wrong. Very wrong. Surprisingly wrong. Money and markets do not have a soul. It has no national agenda or pride. It only exists on numbers. Those numbers heavily weigh to the favour of the new BRIC alliance. Just as assuredly, they condemn the West to a time of severe and fast decline.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Muskrat Falls Injunction Update
Over the last few weeks, a number of people have contacted me through social media and other means to find out what's happening with the Muskrat Falls injunction application. So here it is.
After the Appeal Court of Newfoundland overturned all of Justice Butler's decisions on the first injunction application, and imposed an unprecedented ban on her for having anything to do with any future cases I may be involved in, I resubmitted a new Statement of Claim and injunction application. The first Statement of Claim was based too much on ethical principles and not enough on legal principles in a sense. I can't go further than that, because the issue of costs I was awarded has yet to be settled with the Government and Nalcor.
The new Statement of Claim focuses on one primary theme - unlawful action by the Government, Nalcor, and CFLCO in the development and building of Muskrat Falls. Specifically, the Government committed the unlawful tort of "unlawful interference with economic relations" (description) . Essentially, one party, by its actions against a second party, knowingly causes harm to a third party. One Party = the provincial government. Second Party = Hydro-Quebec. Third Party= taxpayers/ratepayers. The adage goes that the Government knows the water management agreement imposed on CFLCO breaches the Power Contract, which gives Quebec sole access to the power of the Upper Churchill until 2041 (except a small recall). By proceeding with it, and building Muskrat Falls based on it, the government has violated Hydro-Quebec's rights. Hydro-Quebec is now suing us for that breach. We, the taxpayers and ratepayers, will be responsible for the damages awarded and the costs of a useless dam that can only operate at 20% firm capacity without the water management agreement. Hence, the unlawful interference with our economic relations.
In addition, I have included the unlawful treatment of the Nunatukavut and Nunatsiavut governments. The Government is bound by a land claims agreement with the Nunatsiavut that it has broken, and is bound to the Nunatukavut government by constitutional requirements for consultation and accommodation. These three issues of lawfulness have left taxpayers in a position of risk, and all three matters are before the Courts now as a result. To put it simply, my new suit focuses on protecting our economic rights against unlawful government action. It's what is commonly referred to as a "taxpayers lawsuit".
In order to prosecute a "taxpayers lawsuit" I have to qualify for "public interest standing". A hearing date was set to determine public interest standing with Justice Stack presiding over it. However, Justice Stack had already presided over the permanent injunction application granted to Nalcor against the Nunatukavut so I requested he recuse (step down) himself from hearing the matter. The day before the recusal issue was to be heard in Court, the new Chief Justice of the Trial Division named Justice Stack to be Chair of the Independent Boundaries Commission to reduce our seats in the House of Assembly from 48 to 40. I was notified in writing by the Court that, as a result, he would not be hearing the matter - or any matters.
A date still exists on the books for March, so I am hoping a new Justice can be named for that date, and the matter of public interest standing can be successfully determined, so the important issue of an injunction stopping the development of Muskrat Falls can be heard and implemented. This whole process started in November, 2012, and here's hoping it will come to a conclusion within the next 4-6 months. That is my update.
After the Appeal Court of Newfoundland overturned all of Justice Butler's decisions on the first injunction application, and imposed an unprecedented ban on her for having anything to do with any future cases I may be involved in, I resubmitted a new Statement of Claim and injunction application. The first Statement of Claim was based too much on ethical principles and not enough on legal principles in a sense. I can't go further than that, because the issue of costs I was awarded has yet to be settled with the Government and Nalcor.
The new Statement of Claim focuses on one primary theme - unlawful action by the Government, Nalcor, and CFLCO in the development and building of Muskrat Falls. Specifically, the Government committed the unlawful tort of "unlawful interference with economic relations" (description) . Essentially, one party, by its actions against a second party, knowingly causes harm to a third party. One Party = the provincial government. Second Party = Hydro-Quebec. Third Party= taxpayers/ratepayers. The adage goes that the Government knows the water management agreement imposed on CFLCO breaches the Power Contract, which gives Quebec sole access to the power of the Upper Churchill until 2041 (except a small recall). By proceeding with it, and building Muskrat Falls based on it, the government has violated Hydro-Quebec's rights. Hydro-Quebec is now suing us for that breach. We, the taxpayers and ratepayers, will be responsible for the damages awarded and the costs of a useless dam that can only operate at 20% firm capacity without the water management agreement. Hence, the unlawful interference with our economic relations.
In addition, I have included the unlawful treatment of the Nunatukavut and Nunatsiavut governments. The Government is bound by a land claims agreement with the Nunatsiavut that it has broken, and is bound to the Nunatukavut government by constitutional requirements for consultation and accommodation. These three issues of lawfulness have left taxpayers in a position of risk, and all three matters are before the Courts now as a result. To put it simply, my new suit focuses on protecting our economic rights against unlawful government action. It's what is commonly referred to as a "taxpayers lawsuit".
In order to prosecute a "taxpayers lawsuit" I have to qualify for "public interest standing". A hearing date was set to determine public interest standing with Justice Stack presiding over it. However, Justice Stack had already presided over the permanent injunction application granted to Nalcor against the Nunatukavut so I requested he recuse (step down) himself from hearing the matter. The day before the recusal issue was to be heard in Court, the new Chief Justice of the Trial Division named Justice Stack to be Chair of the Independent Boundaries Commission to reduce our seats in the House of Assembly from 48 to 40. I was notified in writing by the Court that, as a result, he would not be hearing the matter - or any matters.
A date still exists on the books for March, so I am hoping a new Justice can be named for that date, and the matter of public interest standing can be successfully determined, so the important issue of an injunction stopping the development of Muskrat Falls can be heard and implemented. This whole process started in November, 2012, and here's hoping it will come to a conclusion within the next 4-6 months. That is my update.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
The Middle East on Fire
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)