Environment > Civil Liberties?

I'm a little scared at the idea that we should be taking our cues on the environment from the Communist, human rights-abusing government of China. What I'm even more scared of is how many people in this country think it's a pretty decent idea. The poll results from this G&M survey, while not scientific of course, suggest that nearly a majority of G&M readers support a half-baked concept that will ultimately do very little for the environment over their civil liberties to enjoy their private property and do with it as they see fit. Behold in awe and horror:



This is one of those things that Canadians say they would do, but let's face it, if push came to shove, they'd be screaming bloody murder at whatever level of government had the unmitigated gall to impose such an absurd law. Last I looked, Canadians' rights to do as they please don't only apply on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. That nearly half who have responded to this poll support the idea doesn't speak well for us.

On "Selling" Afghanistan

I've been doing some thinking this morning about Afghanistan and Canada's participation in that country's reconstruction and stabilization, specifically how Canadians feel about the mission. Polls, as usual, indicate a large divide in the country, with a large majority of Quebeckers opposed to the mission, heightened now by the deaths of Quebec-based Van Doos serving in Kandahar (as many have pointed out, where were Gilles Duceppe et al. when it was Nova Scotians or Albertans being killed?).

I've spent a lot of time here and around the Internet lambasting this government, its predecessor, and the opposition parties for not doing a respectable job of explaining the mission to the public. This is rooted in the belief that Canadians would listen and seek to educate themselves further on the notions of post-conflict stabilization, humanitarian interventions, and counterinsurgency-based combat. But what if this perspective is wrong? Canadians say they're more "globally aware" or what-have-you than Americans, but are they more conscious and conscientious? If Peter Mackay, Maxime Bernier, and Bev Oda tomorrow produced a "slam dunk"-style case for Canada in Afghanistan in a handy little 15-20 page document, would Canadians read it? I know I would, and I know a handful of other people who would as well, mostly fellow academics. But what about regular Canadians? Would they make a legitimate attempt to educate themselves on this most important issue of our foreign affairs in a generation? Would they simply dismiss it as the propaganda of Bush's northern puppet? Or would they not even be aware of its existence?

I've often wondered if one could go out in Rick Mercer-style interviewing to ask if Canadians are proud of the work that their Navy is doing in Afghanistan to defeat Taliban naval forces. I wonder how many wouldn't even blink in giving some asinine answer, not recognizing that Afghanistan is landlocked and thus has no naval forces, legitimate or otherwise. It's an interesting proposition. We're an inward-looking society, despite all our attempts to portray ourselves otherwise. What else do you call people who get up at 5am to go jogging but haven't read a newspaper or a non-fiction book in weeks, months, or years? What else do you say about a people that don't demand action when atrocities are being committed against women in their own country, let alone one that is thousands of kilometres away? These are interesting questions, to be sure. And I'd like to hear what you folks think would be the answers.

I like that the CTV website now allows comments on their stories. I've posted in a couple, one today and one yesterday about Darfur. The topic today though is one that I'd rather comment on at this time. Yesterday Russia announced its intentions to go on a major expedition up to the Arctic and plant a flag. The motive for this maneuver is to demonstrate their sovereignty over the Arctic and therefore lay claim to all of the untapped resources up North. CNN had a lengthy story about it yesterday and how it affected America's interests in the Arctic. They were strangely silent about what Canada felt about it, and today we learned why: the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter Mackay, is living pie-in-the-sky on the issue.

"Look, this isn't the 15th century. You can't go around the world and just plant flags and say 'We're claiming this territory,'" MacKay told CTV's Question Period co-host Jane Taber.

The attitude of Mackay's comment, that the Russians are merely trying to put on a "show," is indicative of Canada's blase and naive view of the world. It's also interesting that he'd make a statement as he did about planting the flag and its irrelevance, given our recent dispute over Hans Island. I'm sure that the realpolitik crowd in Moscow is having a good chuckle from Mackay's comment. They'll be more than happy to put on a sequel, too. Maybe when they've got a nuclear sub roaming around in the Arctic Mackay will just say it's for partisan bluster among the KGB crowd.

Last year, when it was still of recent enough vintage to call it "Canada's New Government," the Tory leadership seemed to be really on the ball when it came to foreign affairs issues. They were clear-headed, principled, and right in unreservedly supporting Israel in its conflict against Hezbollah terrorists. They were strong on Afghanistan. They were strong on rebuilding bridges with Washington. Now, they've all but abandoned Afghanistan after the artificial February 2009 deadline. They're not taking a resurgent Russia seriously. There hasn't been a bilateral meeting between Harper and Bush in months.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that governing a wishy-washy country has rubbed off on the Tories.

Afghanistan Minus Canada Equals Chaos

According to the top RCMP official in Afghanistan, the country will backslide into anarchy without proper training from Canadian and other international police forces.

Afghanistan is in the "middle of an insurgency" and countries, including Canada, that are rebuilding it shouldn't make a hasty exit, says the RCMP officer helping train Afghan police recruits.
The war-torn country risks going backward if international forces leave before it's self-sufficient, said RCMP Supt. David Fudge. Fudge is a police officer with 30 years of experience and his job is to help train Afghan police recruits who are often illiterate and arrive in tattered clothes and flip-flops. He has been on the job in Afghanistan for a year as part of Canada's provincial reconstruction team, a multi-level unit that includes soldiers, police officers and officials from Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency. "Afghanistan is in the middle of an insurgency," Fudge said in an interview at the unit's headquarters, about 18 kilometres from the multinational base in Kandahar.

Establishing a viable police force in Afghanistan is one of the top priorities for the international reconstruction and stabilization mission. It will go a long way in establishing sovereignty and legitimacy for the Karzai government, and lessen the country's dependence on regional warlords who are often involved in shady activities that undermine the coherence of the Afghan state. Drug trafficking remains a major problem in Afghanistan, and the proper training is required for their national forces to combat and reduce the influence of the Afghan drug lords.

A hearty congratulations to Supt. Fudge for speaking in realistic and pragmatic terms. It is obviously not a popular concept in Canada that our responsibility there doesn't end when we reach an arbitrarily chosen deadline. To leave Afghanistan in February 2009 when the training of Afghan police forces--amongst many other things--is incomplete would be to leave uneasy, uncertain young men and women to fight a determined and highly capable enemy. That is not something that a responsible state does to a friend.

**Update** Mark, Ottawa over at The Torch has also posted about this story.

Letter Writing Season

With the House of Commons adjourned for the summer, now is as good a time as any for ordinary Canadians to get in touch with their Members of Parliament, sending them letters, messages, and possibly even face-to-face conversations about the issues that matter to them. Earlier today, as I am prone to doing, I was thinking about Canada's mission in Afghanistan and its mortifyingly low level of support among the Canadian public. There are a number of things to blame for this: politicians with little to no conviction to stand up for our national interests, an irresponsible media, apathy and ignorance among the civilian population, a rising death toll that outstrips all of our other NATO allies, and who knows what all else.

Through this blog and other venues, I've tried to make the case for a continued strong Canadian presence in Afghanistan. I am now going to turn my attention directly to Canadian politicians by writing a series of letters that will be sent to each MP according to his/her caucus. I intend to ask the NDP whey they support abandoning the women of Afghanistan while in the same breath acknowledging that the work we're doing there isn't complete. I intend to ask the Liberals why they have abdicated liberal principles in international relations. And I intend to ask the Conservatives why they are unwilling to step forward, own the issue, and plainly state the case--as often as is necessary--for Canada's continued military and diplomatic presence in Afghanistan. I will be unveiling these letters as I write them here on the blog, and will be sure to note any responses that I receive. I may also do "special" letters for the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Defence, CIDA, and the respective party critics. Hitting the rank and file caucus members is one thing, directing attention to the key players is even more important.

We're on the verge of losing the Canadian public on a matter of our national interest because of their own disinterest. At the same time that Afghanistan's reconstruction and stabilization is in our national interest, it is also a matter of living up to our values and principles. Canada says it stands for democracy, liberty, equality, the rule of law, and human security. All of these principles are at play in Afghanistan. If we abandon principle and interest to satisfy a narrow and, frankly, dangerous, view of our role in the world, we will lose much more than a little bit of face in Washington; indeed, we will lose a piece of what makes Canada great.

What is the Canadian Public's Interest?

This is a question that I, and many others, have and will continue to wrestle with. It is clear to me that there is a distinction between the national interest of Canada and the interests of the Canadian public when it comes to the mission in Afghanistan. I've written many times on Canada's participation in the reconstruction and stabilization mission in that country, and I am very proud of our contribution to that noble mission. Speaking as a Wilsonian realist, there is no doubt in my mind that ensuring security and prosperity in Afghanistan is in the Canadian national interest and concurrent with our ideals of promoting democracy, human security, and liberty in the world. I know that I am not alone in that perspective; the folks over at The Torch are staunch supporters of the mission, and yesterday I read an all-too-rare post by my former Dal colleague Riley expressing his continued support. There are thousands of other voices out there who get it.

But there are also thousands who don't, and some of them happen to occupy important places in our media and government. These folks are the ones who are winning the public relations side of this conflict, undermining the government, public support, our Canadian Forces, our allies, and the people of Afghanistan in reaching the objective of a peaceful, secure, democratic Afghanistan that need not worry about a resurgent Taliban-al Qaeda symbiote overtaking that country again.

And it appears that they have gotten to the Prime Minister.

The Torch today cited a news story in which the following was stated:

Mr. Harper reaffirmed his government's plans to seek a "reasonable degree" of parliamentary support before considering any extension to the current Afghan mission, or agreeing to a new one. But when asked whether he has any desire to prolong the combat mission in southern Afghanistan beyond 2009, Mr. Harper said, "No."

I don't know if he's just being coy, and leaving out whether or not the Government plans to have a continued presence in a different region of Afghanistan after February '09, or if he's conceding that there's no chance of Canada being a participant in any part of the larger reconstruction and stabilization mission. My great fear is that it's the latter. I'm not going to go into another diatribe on why Afghanistan should matter to Canadians, and why I feel as though we should maintain a strong leadership presence in the country. I've done that enough, which is why I'm putting links to some of my many posts on the subject. What I really would like to know is why can Canadians not wrap their heads around the importance of Afghanistan's future and how it is squarely in our interests.

Why Afghanistan Matters

What Canada Must Overcome to Succeed in Afghanistan

On Timetables and Afghanistan

PMSH in Afghanistan

They Still Just Don't Get It

Irresponsible Canadian Media, Exhibit 290H

I just finished watching, on CTV Newsnet, a live interview conducted with a member of an anti-war group called "Block the Empire Montreal." It was largely an incoherent string of rambling that advanced no aspect of the Canadian interest, and served no purpose other than to plant the kernel of doubt in people's minds that Canada should continue to serve its responsibilities in Afghanistan. After all, if "Block the Empire Montreal" is opposed to the war, surely rational Canadians will arrive at the same conclusions. This group is involved in the letter-writing campaign to Quebec-based Canadian Forces personnel urging them to commit an act of treason and bail out on the mission before they deploy overseas.

Allowing the spokesperson to rant without any real questions, rebuttals, or follow-ups is irresponsible reporting on the part of CTV. They gave her a solid 5 minutes to stumble, bumble, and eventually get around to the pinnacle of the "interview": the military recruits people by promising them a better future, giving them skills training, and paying them. STOP THE PRESS!

Seriously, folks, I'm all for allowing people the right to express themselves without fear of political recrimination, but why doesn't CTV exercise some responsibility and at least vet some of these people before letting them on national television? Saying "no" to some nutbar's request for an interview isn't suppressing their right to free speech, it's just telling them to peddle their spiel elsewhere.

A young man was killed in Afghanistan yesterday, and today the media is doing the full-court press--as it does every time one of these tragedies occur--to undermine the Canadian government's policy in Afghanistan. It is irresponsible and harmful to the Canadian interest, and yet none of these organizations are ever held accountable by us, the people.

They Still Just Don't Get It

This is largely picking up something off Kinsella's, but deserves to be repeated and rebuked, time and time again:

"It's a hard sell, this terrorism stuff. When more people are dying on our side of the world from bathtub mishaps than terror outbreaks, you wonder how long the paranoia can linger."

The comment comes from the G&M's Lawrence Martin, a contemptible piece written on May 24th. Like most of the latent anti-Americans running around the Globe's offices, Martin would love to bury his head in the sand and act as though the world hasn't dramatically changed since 9/11. Look at the framing of the greatest issue in global politics and international relations of the 21st century: "this terrorism stuff." It's just a simple thing, a collection of things, and not one that's easy to convince people is actually really an issue at all. Sort of like trying to tell people that dust bunnies will cause massive amounts of lethal allergic reactions and thus we must all hunker down and start cleaning. Take that, grand strategists of the world!

I know, I know, freedom of speech, different political perceptions, to each their own pair of rose-coloured glass, and all that stuff. But it really makes you wonder how some people can look at the reality of the world around them and arrive at the conclusion that falling down in the bathtub constitutes a greater threat to Canadian, American, and global security than a movement whose stated agenda is to kill four million Americans and any other infidels that obstruct their path to reconstituting the Islamic caliphate of centuries long gone.

It is exactly this type of laissez-faire attitude, the sentiment that we can let our guards down simply because it's been more than five years and Canada still hasn't been on the wrong end of a terrorist attack led by al Qaeda or some other network, that will embolden the terrorists to actually attack us. So soon Martin forgets that only a year ago a plot to storm Parliament, capture and behead the Prime Minister of Canada was uncovered. We owe it to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies for preventing that attack, and the countless others that have not happened.

In Lawrence Martin's world, Canada would unilaterally declare that it's getting out of "the terrorism stuff," post haste. But as surely as someone falling in a bathtub, an attack against this country for its participation in Afghanistan would follow. Complacency and cowardice are the allies of the terrorists. They know that Canada is soft, its underbelly (the Canadian public and especially the media) ripe for a solid body blow. They think that we would mimic Spain's decision after the Madrid bombing to get out of Iraq, by getting out of Afghanistan and cowering from coast-to-coast-to-coast. Lawrence Martin would likely be the first to run an article in the G&M proclaiming our surrender, unless Jack Layton were able to nudge him out with a guest editorial comment.

This is what makes the Left so dangerous: by portraying those of us on the Right as hysterical and full of paranoia, and the Right refusing to engage in that type of childlike debate, they appear to hold more rational thought and thus by default capture public sentiment. It happened with Ballistic Missile Defence, it happened with Iraq, it happens from time to time on matters pertaining to Afghanistan. The Left cries out, the Right says nothing, and thus the people--largely apathetic and disengaged on foreign affairs--hear only the Left and take on those positions.

This is deeply troubling for Canadian national interests and our security. I sincerely hope that somebody out there with a large pulpit starts tearing down the facade of credibility that people like Lawrence Martin and Jeff Simpson have in the minds of Canadians. Those type of writers simply don't "get it" when it comes to the nature of 21st century conflict. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, so expecting people who grew up in the airy-fairy world of Trudeau to understand the intricacies of fourth-generation warfare, terrorism, and counterinsurgencies is a little rich. But somebody out there needs to start countering these dimwits, or else the body count from terrorism will quickly outgrow the fatalities incurred from slipping in the shower.

Canadians Want to "Negotiate" with Terrorists to End Mission they Oppose

This morning, CTV confronts me with this:

Nearly two out of three Canadians want us to have a little sit-down chat with people who are trying to kill us and send Afghanistan back into its dark ages. CTV also tells us that only 40% of Canadians support the mission, compared to 55% who oppose it. I don't usually do narratives, but I can almost picture how this one would go:

Taliban - Leave, infidels.

Canadian - Look, the people back home support that position, but we want some guarantees. First, no more roadside bomb or other IED attacks on the civilian population. Second, continue allowing girls to go to school and women be represented in Parliament. Third, no more alliances with al Qaeda or similar organizations.

Taliban - We will attack all infidels who betray the will of Allah. That includes all women who defy the law of sharia, appearing in public with their tempting faces uncovered, humiliating their families by speaking of your "human rights" and seeking work that is best done by men. We will work with all organizations that seek to incorporate all of the ummah under Islam, Allah be willing, and we will seek them out in their efforts to rid the Islamic world of the vile oppression of the West.

Canadian - You just basically said that you wouldn't meet any of the guarantees we are seeking. How can you possibly expect us to meet our mutually desired end-state if you aren't willing to give us some accomodation?

Taliban - *stares coldly into Canadian's eyes*

Canadian - You have to give us something here so that we don't look quite as bad when we return home. Nobody except for Denis Coderre will be happy to see that we've totally capitulated and abandoned the mission in Afghanistan.

Taliban - You have heard our demands. You can take them at full value, or you can take nothing. Speaking of your officials, how is Mr. Layton doing?

Canadian - He's fine, and here's the fruit basket that he sent to you. Look, I know that you're a reasonable man, surely we can reach some compromises here.

Taliban - Muslims do not compromise with infidels, strength be with Allah. You come to our country, you violate our sovereignty, you impose your puppet government, and you want us to compromise? You are fortunate that the white sheikh* does not come here personally and slay you by his own hand! Here is your compromise offer: leave, and we won't kill you on your way out.

Canadian - Listen, we're giving you far more than Bush and his neocons would ever give you just by showing up here and talking to you. Remember (in mocking Bush tone) "we don't negotiate with evil, we defeat it?" You can either deal with us or you can deal with the cowboys from Washington.

Taliban - The Great Satan is weak, brought low and humbled by the will of Allah and the spilling of the blood of our brothers here and in Iraq. We will defeat all infidels and restore the caliphate in all lands you have stolen from Muslims.

Canadian - Just give us something here. Promise not to destroy any schools or blow up any dams. Those things are expensive, and it makes our guys look incompetent at protecting people from your attacks.

Taliban - You are incompetent. Leave now, out of the room. It is time for prayer.

Canadian - But, but we have reached any sort of dea--

Taliban - Out, infidel!

Canadian, turning to other official on his way out - Well, that's a start, I think we've made some real progress there. We Canadians can achieve anything, there's nothing we can't solve by sitting across a table and talking, just like the CTV guy said.

*Osama bin Laden

Happy Earth Day, except to the Goddamn Economists!

Canada's favourite homegrown enviro-propagandist, David Suzuki, has some advice to all Canadians:

"First of all, let's stop listening to the goddamn economists," he said. "Twenty per cent of the economy will disappear. It will cost more than World War I and World War II put together. We'll go into a kind of depression we've never, ever had in all of history." The CBC story containing that little ditty leads off:

Canadians are ready to pay a little extra to help deal with climate change, David Suzuki said Friday before a meeting with the federal environment minister. "I think they're willing to suck it in and accept that they're going to have to pay more but they want it to be fair," Suzuki said during a news conference in Ottawa.

Interesting idea, but he's not correct. Check out the poll over at CTV's website and recall this little ditty that I had up a month ago:

I don't know what is going on with these once-respected public figures, but the hysteria is getting louder by the day and ever-harder to digest rationally. General Canadian interest in "the environment" as an issue is superficial at least and passing at most. They see it on the news all the time, hear the message repeated that it's a pressing concern, and thus respond that it is an issue. It's little different from the turn of the century when "health care" was the dominant issue in multiple elections. Canadians love health care, they list it as a "Canadian value," yet in recent years there has been far less political emphasis on the system despite its continuing shortcomings.

Stephane Dion has referred to the environment issue as one of great urgency and said that every day that Stephen Harper is in office the situation will continue to worsen. You'd think that this would provide him an impetus to make a grab for power and force an election. Yet he and his party faithful are insistent that it is Harper and only Harper that wants an election. Contradictory message to say in the least.

I care about the environment and am regularly disgusted by the volume of litter that clutters the streets and sidewalks of Halifax. I try do my part: I recycle, I use public transit and my own two feet to get around, and I try to use as little electricity as possible (most electricity here in Nova Scotia is coal-generated). My "carbon footprint" (whatever that is) is a fraction of David Suzuki's or Al Gore's. I have political interests that I believe are a higher priority than "the environment," but that doesn't mean I go around tossing garbage in the streets or contributing to the problem. The people who are--self-appointedly--in charge of the environment movement are doing more to alienate regular people than to bring them in the fold with their hystrionics and bad advice.

On Timetables and Afghanistan

Unfortunately I missed Thursday's parliamentary debate on Afghanistan. Thankfully, I have Hansard, available on the Internet. As I've been reading through it, I am struck by something that the Liberals repeatedly insist about the extent of Canada's commitment to the mission:

Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Halifax about the necessity to show, despite the arguments, that we are trying to help the people of Afghanistan and play a good role. I respect her point of view. I still think we may do good things in the next two years.

Canada is committed until February 2009.

Reading that statement troubles me greatly. We're in it, but we're not in it for "as long it takes" or "until the government of Afghanistan is satisfied with the security situation in the country and requests that ISAF leave effective [insert date]" or "until the Taliban can no longer threaten the people of Afghanistan." No, Canada "is committed until February 2009." Then, pack 'er up, folks, we're going home.

I dread the thought that these people were governing the country in 1915. "Canada is committed until January 1917" or some other such date that had no bearing on, or relation to, the course of the War or the prospects of victory for the Entente countries and their allies. Jay Hill raised a similar point about the Nazis. Imagine if William Mackenzie-King, the Liberal Prime Minister during WWII, had only sufficient backbone to say that Canada would fight Hitler until 1943. Timetables and arbitrary deadlines don't work when applying them ex post facto and they do not work today.

Canada, or at least its political parties, desperately wants to believe in the existence of an international community. I hold no such delusions. Yet I am perplexed: if Canada wants to support the international community, why is it not prepared to participate in its major endeavours until they are completed? A good hockey player doesn't arbitrarily leave the ice with 15 minutes left in the second period (note: NOT AN ANALOGY TO AFGHANISTAN'S CURRENT PROGRESS!), they stick around until the final whistle blows. What if, in February 2009, conditions in Afghanistan, specifically Kandahar, are worse today than they are now? What if the Taliban is only days away from collapsing when we pack up and let, say, the French, who don't leave the base after dark, take over?

Canadians know, or should know, that their government and military forces are doing an incredible job in Afghanistan. Refer to Ted Menzies' contribution to the debate on Thursday to see some of the accolades that Canadians are receiving from the Afghanistan government. The work that we are doing not only in Kandahar, but in providing aid to the entire country to facilitate reconstruction, is invaluable to the progress and hopeful success of that country's people. And of the Liberals, he said, this:

They are unable to see that each of those numbers, each of those millions of little girls going to school, has a name, a face and a hope that there is better life than the one they have known. Canada is not helping numbers. We are helping real people who deserve no less than we do: shelter, food, water and the ability to provide for their families. Why do the Liberals believe the people of Afghanistan deserve to be abandoned?

Which, of course, leads me to the NDP. Try on this for logic:

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): We know that Afghan women are still subject to arbitrary imprisonment, rape, torture and forced marriage. This is why in August last year the NDP asked that the present mission end.

I cannot, for the life of me, contort myself and my thinking to square the circle that because atrocities are still happening in Afghanistan, Canada should no longer participate in Afghanistan to end atrocities. In my view, that quote right there eliminates the NDP from holding any authority or legitimacy when it comes to promoting human rights and equality. They see that gross human rights violations are occurring, and when Canada has the chance to put an end to it, they want Canadians to have no part of it.

I am regularly disappointed by Canadian parliamentarians, and reading Thursday's Hansard provided more of it. When I hear Denis Coderre ranting and raving about Canada purchasing tanks, I cannot help but feel as though Canada is not a truly serious country in international affairs. I can't fathom even Dennis Kucinich going apoplectic in Congress because the Pentagon has announced it is seeking to buy some new tanks so that American forces have the best equipment available to them to win.

Canadians are clearly not in Afghanistan for imperialist reasons, though the nutbar that posts stickers around Halifax claiming we are may disagree with me. We've been looking for an exit strategy before the first CF members set foot in the country. We're there for the very best of reasons that are coinciding with our values and our interests. Yet some factions are decided upon removing Canada from Afghanistan as soon as possible, even though atrocities are still occurring and the mission is not complete. If not Afghanistan, to these people I ask, where?

This Says It All

I'm glad that I screen-captured this, because it was gone from the headlines 20 minutes later:

No kidding eh?