Three months before Canada announced it would remain in Afghanistan to train troops, the Afghan National Army announced “it reached the benchmark strength of 134,000 soldiers two months ahead of schedule.” (Big hat tip to Dr. Dawg and Prof. Amir Attaran) Another NATO document reports great strides in training and operational capability. With most, if not all of the heavy lifting in the training department accomplished, what will our Canadian troops have to do? It turns out, we’ve been buying Afghan real estate. Really expensive real estate.
According to the National Post, Foreign Affairs Canada has been on a real estate spending spree,with a “410% increase in its spending on real estate and capital works since Prime Minister Stephen Harper came to power.”
Afghan real estate has been a high priority. Last year, Foreign Affairs spent $24.5 million on real estate or renovations in Afghanistan; the year before, Afghan real estate cost us $23.6 million. According to the National Post,
“Much of the money is being spent on Canada’s chancery in Kabul. Public accounts reports show an estimated $18.5 million of the spending over the past two years is related to the chancery, including architectural work, construction-site development, mine clearing, a seismic upgrade and installation of an elevator. Another $14.3 million was spent on buying staff quarters and additional chancery spaces in Kabul. Canada paid Afghanistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs $11.7 million for land in Kabul. And $1.7 million went to Canada’s Defence Department to buy additional offices and accommodations in Kandahar in 2008-09.”
With investments like these, do you think they ever intend to leave?
On November 18, Call your MP and the Party Leaders and demand…. Don’t Extend It. End It.
The Conservative government, with the support of the Liberals are about to extend Canada’s war in Afghanistan. The Prime Minster says there is no need to debate the issue. Evidently he believes that keeping 1000 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, at a cost of $3 billion and against the will of 80 per cent of Canadians is an issue that needs no further discussion.
Stephen Harper is expected to announce the details of the extension of the Canadian deployment at the this week. He needs to hear from you!
Let the Prime Minister and the Party Leaders know that Canadians are against any extension of the war in Afghanistan and want the troops brought home now.
What can you do? 1- Join the virtual march on Ottawa this Thursday November 18. Phone, E-mail, fax and write your your MP and the Party leaders and call on them to end the war.
3- Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper. Please keep in mind that letters to the editor should be less than 200 words and must be accompanied by your contact information.
Points to consider in your letters and calls:
– Civilian and military casualties are at record levels in Afghanistan. Even with 150,000 troops, the resistance has a heavy presence in most of the country. There is no indication that this will get better with the new extension. In fact, all indicators point to a deteriorating situation that is not being helped with more troops.
– Women’s rights are still being eroded by the NATO backed government and the majority of reconstruction funds disappear into the pockets of Afghan officials and western development agencies.
– The government that Canada supports in Afghanistan is a corrupt warlord led government that hangs onto power through fraudulent “elections”.
– The extension of the war is expected to cost Canadians at least $3 billion according to Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page.
– The notion that Canada can stay in a non-combat role is not true. If our soldiers are training Afghan troops they will still be in harm’s way.
Harper’s decision to continue Canada’s participation in the occupation of Afghanistan beyond 2011 is no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. Ignatieff’s acquiescence is similarly unsurprising. Still, in light of previous statements, their hypocrisy is impressive. For example:
“We will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy. We will not be undertaking any kind activity that requires a significant military force protection, so it will become a strictly civilian mission.”
–Stephen Harper quoted in National Post, January 6, 2010
“We’re bound by the parliamentary resolution. I’ve said clearly that our party’s position currently is that the military phase of the mission ends in 2011.”
–Michael Ignatieff quoted by Canadian Press, February 2009
“Mr. Speaker, as members of the House know, we made a pledge during the last election campaign to put international treaties and military engagements to a vote in this chamber.”
–Stephen Harper in the House of Commons, May 17, 2006
Tory-Liberal strategists and their apologists in the mainstream media are framing the issue in terms of training versus combat. By misrepresenting the character of the military mission they hope to defuse outrage over the promise not to commit Canada to “military engagements” without a Parliamentary vote.
Their refusal to debate the issue in the House of Commons deprives the NDP and BQ of an opportunity to challenge the government’s plans. It may also divert them from what should be the real issue, namely: “Should Canada have any involvement in Afghanistan?”
Most Canadians oppose continued military involvement in Afghanistan. A CBC-EKOS poll in April 2010 indicated that 60 per cent of Canadians opposed an extension of the military mission beyond 2011. A September 2010 Global News poll confirmed this view, with 61 per cent opining that “all Canadian troops need to come home.”
One has to ask what kind of democracy we have if the governing party and the principle opposition party can collude to flout the will of the majority of Canadians on issues as important as war and peace. Harper’s decision is one more indication of his lack of fitness to govern our country; Ignatieff’s complicity confirms his unsuitability to succeed Mr. Harper in the next election.
Where does this leave the NDP? A recent NDP statement is problematic:
“Harper waited until MPs left Ottawa and then engaged in a backroom deal with the Ignatieff Liberals to extend the military mission in Afghanistan. This is wrong,” said New Democrat Leader Jack Layton. “A majority of Canadians say they are against extending the military mission – Conservatives and Liberals must start listening to Canadians, not just to each other.”
“What New Democrats are saying is we need an increased focus on diplomacy, development and governance in Afghanistan, in order to build a lasting peace to this region,” said Layton. “Canada’s military has served with honour and done its fair share, now it’s time for Canada’s contribution to be through aid and diplomacy.”
Layton expresses his opposition to continued military action and his support for the peaceful aspirations of Canadians. This is positive.
However, his opportunistic genuflection to “Canada’s military” which “has served with honour and done its fair share” misleads Canadians about the shameful character of Canada’s involvement in America’s imperial war. The fact is, before the UN gave the occupation a fig-leaf of legality, the American-led invasion was a naked act of aggression, a crime against humanity, a war of aggression that had been on the drawing board well before Sept. 11, 2001. By supporting this war, Canada’s political leaders (Liberal and Conservative) are the moral equivalent of the Nazis we hanged at Nuremberg; our troops are their hired guns.
Layton’s commitment to ongoing aid for the the corrupt gang of drug lords and crooks that allegedly governs Afghanistan (aka, the Karzai government) reveals either a complete misreading of the war in Afghanistan (which is as much as anything else a civil war between ethnically defined contenders) or a preference for the kinder, gentler forms of imperialism that have characterized Canadian foreign policy in the past (also known as “peace keeping”).
The fact is, any Canadian involvement in Afghanistan that lends support to the Karzai government puts us on the side of America’s imperial project. Layton should know better.
Where does this leave the peace movement? I suppose we should be grateful for any kind of Parliamentary allies, however imperfect. That said, it seems unlikely that Parliament will extract us from this war or keep us out of future American imperial adventures.
“The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is required is the development of a broad and well organized grassroots antiwar network which challenges the structures of power and authority.
“What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of war, a global people’s movement which criminalizes war.
“Antiwar protest does not question the legitimacy of those to whom the protest is addressed.
“Protest is accepted under Western style “democracy”, precisely because it accepts the established political order, while exerting pressure on political leaders to shift their policy stance.
“Protest serves the interests of the war criminals in high office, to whom the demands are directed.
“Ultimately what is at stake is the legitimacy of the political and military actors and the economic power structures, which control the formulation and direction of US foreign policy.”
While much of his article appears to be more directed at the American peace movement, these concerns need to be addressed by Canadian activists if we are to move beyond the limitations of Layton’s lame response.
Michael Ignatieff and Co. can’t get enough criticism for their desertion of Bill C-440 to suit me. But let’s not deny the Tories their fair share of the shame. Against the will of most Canadians, the Tories have conducted a campaign of persecution against American war resisters since coming to power. In their slavish admiration of American imperialism, they ignore important aspects of international law. In their eagerness to crawl into bed with war criminals, they are complicit in some of the most horrendous crimes against humanity of this century.
The Tories spare no effort to prevent war resisters from exercising their right to conscientious objection. Wednesday’s defeat of Bill C-440, to which they unanimously voted “nay” is just the most recent example. Because the War Resisters Support Campaign web site is replete with examples of the Tory pogrom against conscientious objectors, I won’t deal with that here.
Instead, I want to address the standard Tory refrain that war resisters are “cowards” or “deserters” who should shut up, stay in the army and keep killing or rot in an American prison.
Nazis, Nuremberg and Numb Tory Memories
Despite their “Conservative” label, the Tories have forgotten important aspects of our shared history, chief among them the Second World War and the trials of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg in 1945 and 1946. In 1950, the UN International Law Commission codified the legal principles that emerged during these trials. The Tories would do well to acquaint themselves with the Nuremberg Principles because they are key to understanding why American war resisters should be granted sanctuary in Canada.
Principle VI states,
“The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”
A “war of aggression” is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense or the sanction of the United Nations. Under the Nuremberg Principles, a war of aggression is a “crime against peace.” The invasion of Iraq, perpetrated by the U.S. and its allies under the guise of protecting the world against non-existent weapons of mass destruction meets the definition of a “crime against peace.”
I have italicized those portions which apply to this invasion, a crime of overwhelming proportions which resulted in the destruction of a nation, the displacement of almost four million people and the death of an estimated 1.3 million. War resisters are refusing to participate in this crime, and who can blame them?
What of the Tory argument that war resisters signed a contract with the U.S. military and therefore should honour their contract (i.e., kill Iraqis in a “crime against peace”)?
Nuremberg Principle 4 provides some guidance. It states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.
In other words, to say your were “just following orders” is no defense. War resisters understand this. They have made a conscientious decision to refuse to participate in this massive crime against humanity. War resisters embody the Nuremberg Principles; most Canadians recognize this and welcome them to our country.
“No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
If war resisters are not “political refugees” I don’t know who is. There is no question that they face imprisonment if returned to the U.S. because a number of them have been deported and subsequently jailed. It is clear that Canada is in violation of the UN Refugee Convention.
What now?
Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party are committed to deporting every American war resister they can find, regardless of Canadian public opinion or international law. Harper was an early hawk on Iraq, and there is no reason to believe he has modified his position.
Short of replacing them in the next election, we will not resolve this issue satisfactorily.
The situation is further complicated by the actions of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and a small gang of liberal MPs who absented themselves from Wednesday’s House of Commons vote on Bill C-440, thereby dooming it to defeat (143-136). I’m not a Liberal, but I sincerely hope the 57 Liberal MPs who voted for C-440 rouse their party to get rid of him. For more than a few reasons, he’s a liability Liberals can no longer afford.
In the near term, the best we can manage is to provide moral and material support to the War Resisters Support Campaign. That’s plenty enough to keep us busy.
On Aug. 6, the 1945 nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be marked with a Lantern Ceremony at Memorial Park in Winnipeg. The keynote address will be given by MP Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas) on a private members bill (C-447) now before Parliament for the establishment of a Department of Peace.
Date: Friday, August 6, 2010 Place: Memorial Park (by the fountain, York Avenue and Memorial Boulevard) Time: Lantern making begins at 7:30 p.m.; speakers begin at 8:30 p.m.; lanterns will be launched at 9:15 p.m.
The annual commemoration of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings is part of a world wide observance held to promote nuclear disarmament and world peace. In Winnipeg, the event is sponsored by the Manitoba Japanese Canadian Citizens Association, Peace Alliance Winnipeg, and Project Peacemakers.
In August, 1945, after 6 months of firebombing attacks on 67 Japanese cities, US President Harry Truman ordered the atomic bombing of Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9). The death toll was enormous – 140,000 in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945. Many more thousands died over the months and years to come from injuries and illnesses caused by radiation poisoning.
For many years, Winnipeggers have commemorated these tragedies and reaffirmed our commitment to peace and freedom from nuclear terror. We symbolize our commitment with a Lantern Ceremony.
The Lantern Ceremony is part of an ancient Buddhist Ceremony (O-Bon), that commemorates the lives of deceased loved ones. For many years around the world, this ceremony has been used on Hiroshima Peace Day to remember and embrace the memory of people who died because of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During these ceremonies, participants are invited to design a lantern that represents their thoughts and feelings regarding personal losses, global concerns of peace, nuclear disarmament and any other issues relevant to keeping our planet safe.
Video of last year’s Lantern Ceremony in Winnipeg
Sadako and a Thousand Paper Cranes
In addition to lanterns we will be making origami peace cranes to commemorate the story of “Sadako and a Thousand Paper Cranes.”
Sadako Sasaki, a young girl of 10 years old, became sick with leukemia from the effects of the atomic bomb in post war Japan. She believed in an ancient tale that if you made 1000 paper cranes, you would be granted a wish. She wished for good health.
She died before she completed making the cranes and her classmates completed the task for her.
Each year, thousands of paper cranes from all over the world adorn the statue of Sadako in the Hiroshima Peace Park in Hiroshima, Japan.
Bill C-447 – An Act to establish the Department of Peace
Bill Siksay, MP (Burnaby-Douglas) is the mover of Bill C-447 – An Act to Establish a Department of Peace. Seconded by Jim Karygiannis, MP (Scarborough-Agincourt ), the bill passed First Reading in the House of Commons, Sept. 30, 2009. Mr. Siksay will speak about this bill at the Lantern Ceremony.
You can read the full Bill in English and French, here: Bill C-447
1. Develop early detection and rapid response processes to deal with emerging conflicts and establish systemic responses to post-conflict demobilization, reconciliation and reconstruction
2. Lead internationally to abolish nuclear, biological, chemical weapons, to reduce conventional weapon arsenals and to ban the weaponization of space
3. Implement the UN Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace (1999) to safeguard human rights and enhance the security of persons and their communities
4. Implement UN Resolution 1325 on the key role played by women in the wide spectrum of peacebuilding work
5. Establish a Civilian Peace Service that, with other training organizations, will recruit, train and accredit peace professionals and volunteers to work at home and abroad, as an alternative to armed intervention.
6. Address issues of violence in Canada by promoting nonviolent approaches that encourage community involvement and responsibility such as Restorative Justice, Nonviolent Communication (NVC) and Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR)
7. Support the development of peace education at all levels including post-secondary peace and conflict studies
8. Promote the transition from a war-based to a peace-based economy.
It’s Martin Luther King Day in the United States. It’s a big deal in the land of toxic derivatives; even the stock markets are closed in his memory.
Once harassed and stalked by the the FBI, King’s memory is now regularly and hypocritically invoked by those who stand on his shoulders.
Were King alive he would have just celebrated his 81st birthday. Had he survived the assassin’s bullet he would still be followed by spooks and menaced by that which he famously described as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” — the U.S. government.
Speaking at Riverside Church in New York City on April 4, 1967, King exposed the hypocrisy of the U.S. government and called on it to end the war in Vietnam. His words sent shock waves through the land because he articulated a truth that millions of Americans had not been allowed to hear.
He shared with them his outrage at the subversion of democracy, the murder of men, women and children, the destruction of cultures and livelihoods and cruel irony that black and white Americans were being sent to kill and die together by a country that segregated them at home.
Martin Luther King exposed the Big Lie of American imperialism that day in New York City; exactly one year later, in Memphis, Tennessee, he would pay for his truth-telling with his life.
In reading his speech today I’m struck by the parallels between Vietnam (and America’s other wars in Laos and Cambodia) and the current day “war on terrorism” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and increasingly, in Yemen.
Read King’s speech for yourself; then re-read it and make a few substitutions:
“terrorists” for “communists”
“Al-Quaida” for “Viet Cong”
“Afghanistan” for “Vietnam”
“America” for “America”
Most of the actors have different names but the script is the same weary, blood-soaked, tear-stained tale.
The antidote remains the same, as well. King called upon his fellow Americans to oppose the war nonviolently, creatively and without letting up. But he acknowledged that anti-war protests were not enough. As King put it:
The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.
King maintained that America needed make radical changes.
We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
Our Prime Minister continues to promote the fiction that the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington justified the illegal invasion of Afghanistan and that Canada’s participation in the occupation is about preventing terrorists from harming Canadians.
Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean says she is saddened that there is any debate at all over whether Canada should be helping the country’s less fortunate. (Memo to MJ: Canada is still a democracy, eh. We do debate these things – war and such – from time to time!)
Canadian entertainer Bruce Cockburn was part of a group of entertainers who performed at a forward operating base in the Panjwaii district of Afghanistan on Thursday, Sept. 10, 2009. After Cockburn sung If I Had a Rocket Launcher Gen. Jonathan Vance jokingly presented him with a rocket launcher of his own.THE CANADIAN PRESS/Bill Graveland
And Bruce Cockburn, arguably one of Canada’s most talented and radical singer-songwriters, was presented (briefly) with a rocket launcher the other day following his performance for Canadian troops.
Of the three stories, the last one was the least expected and the most heart-breaking. For Cockburn, the humanitarian, to lend his name and talent to this occupation, was a huge disappointment. He’s always struck me as an intelligent, well-informed, no-bullshit kinda guy.
Contrast his joshing around with the Canadian general who loaned him the rocket launcher with the man who wrote “Call it Democracy.”
Call it Democracy
by Bruce Cockburn
Padded with power here they come
International loan sharks backed by the guns
Of market hungry military profiteers
Whose word is a swamp and whose brow is smeared
With the blood of the poor
Who rob life of its quality
Who render rage a necessity
By turning countries into labour camps
Modern slavers in drag as champions of freedom
Sinister cynical instrument
Who makes the gun into a sacrament —
The only response to the deification
Of tyranny by so-called “developed” nations’
Idolatry of ideology
North South East West
Kill the best and buy the rest
It’s just spend a buck to make a buck
You don’t really give a flying fuck
About the people in misery
IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there’s one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt
See the paid-off local bottom feeders
Passing themselves off as leaders
Kiss the ladies shake hands with the fellows
Open for business like a cheap bordello
And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy
See the loaded eyes of the children too
Trying to make the best of it the way kids do
One day you’re going to rise from your habitual feast
To find yourself staring down the throat of the beast
They call the revolution
IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there’s one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt
Has Cockburn switched sides? Does he now practise the “idolatry of ideology” peddled by the Harpers and Jeans in our country whose actions and words make all Canadians complicit in murder?
Has he joined the “International loan sharks backed by the guns/ Of market hungry military profiteers/ Whose word is a swamp and whose brow is smeared/ With the blood of the poor”?
Has he forgotten why he wrote “If I had a rocket launcher“? Did he appreciate the irony of performing it to part of an invading army whose airstrikes are precisely the kind of outrage that inspired his song?
If I had a rocket launcher
by Bruce Cockburn
Here comes the helicopter — second time today
Everybody scatters and hopes it goes away
How many kids they’ve murdered only God can say
If I had a rocket launcher…I’d make somebody pay
I don’t believe in guarded borders and I don’t believe in hate
I don’t believe in generals or their stinking torture states
And when I talk with the survivors of things too sickening to relate
If I had a rocket launcher…I would retaliate
On the Rio Lacantun, one hundred thousand wait
To fall down from starvation — or some less humane fate
Cry for guatemala, with a corpse in every gate
If I had a rocket launcher…I would not hesitate
I want to raise every voice — at least I’ve got to try
Every time I think about it water rises to my eyes.
Situation desperate, echoes of the victims cry
If I had a rocket launcher…Some son of a bitch would die
Which side are you on, Bruce? What were you thinking?
In the meantime, let’s lighten up a bit with another guy’s 9/11 musings. Deek Jackson is not as polished, musically, as Bruce Cockburn, but you’ll want to sing along. (Warning: This video contains lots of vulgar language and gallows humour – which is part of its charm.)
“Crime against humanity”- means murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, persecution or any other inhumane act that is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group of persons that constitutes a contravention of customary or conventional international law or is criminal according to the general principles of law.
As long as war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed, Canada will be vigilant to prevent those responsible from entering Canada and becoming or remaining citizens. We will be ready to commence criminal investigations and prosecute such persons found in Canada.
This is, of course, a complete crock. When George W. Bush visited Calgary last month, not only did the Mounties ignore their obligation to detain and charge him, but the government pulled out all the stops to protect this mass murderer.
Rice’s visit will attract at least as much outrage as Bush’s, and presumably as much police presence and state protection for a woman who, along with Bush et al, is culpable in the deaths of 1.3 million Iraqis, 60,000 Afghans, and countless other crimes against people around the world.
What are we to make of a government that would welcome these thugs into Canada while preventing the visit of British MP George Galloway who is demonstrably opposed to mass murder? OK, that is a rhetorical question.
Less rhetorically, what are we going to do about it?
Some good folks in Maple Ridge, BC, also known as the Coalition of the Willing, are confronting their local MP on this issue. In an open letter, the Coalition calls upon MP Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission) to resign and “sit as an independent (at least until your party reforms itself), so that you may begin representing the wishes of your constituents to Ottawa, and not Ottawa to us.” If Kamp does not meet their demand, the Coalition might run a candidate against him in the next election. Is Kamp worried? With a 51 percent majority in the last election and a 19 point lead over NDP candidate Mike Bocking, he doesn’t look too vulnerable. So, unless Mr. Kamp has a social conscience, I imagine he will ignore the Coalition of the Willing.
The Coalition says this issue is not one of Left versus Right, but Right versus Wrong. In Parliamentary terms, they may well be right. The NDP has been disconcertingly AWOL from this debate.
On behalf of Mr. Layton, thank you for copying our office on the correspondence concerning former President George W. Bush`s March 17th visit to Canada. Please be advised that we will not be following-up on this matter.
Sincerely,
Office of Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada’s New Democrats
Michael Byers, who carried the NDP banner to third place in Vancouver Centre last year. says that he supports a criminal investigation of Bush’s crimes, but he does not support calls for a Canadian prosecution at this time. He says he prefers to give the Obama administration the “first opportunity” to prosecute Bush. Yeah, right.
That seems to be as good as it gets with the NDP, so perhaps the Coalition is onto something — this is a case of “Right versus Wrong” and on this issue our Parliamentary Left is demonstrably wrong.
In fairness to the NDP, it opposes the war in Afghanistan, supports the repatriation of Omar Khadr, and would allow war resisters to remain in Canada. What are we to conclude from its unwillingness to engage when it has the opportunity to seek the prosecution of “The Decider” who made all of these crimes happen? That Jack Layton is a closet war criminal? Unlikely. That Jack Layton is trying to appear realistic and hence “Prime Ministerial”? Getting warmer, I think.
What are we to do, beside writing the usual letters of outrage to our MPs (find yours here)? Well, we can start with or continue with that strategy. We can hook up with the Coalition of the Willing and Lawyers Against the War. We can be active in our local peace and human rights organizations.
The most important thing we can do is to refuse to lose our sense of outrage that abuses of human rights are committed, aided and abetted by our government. We can refuse to accept the fact that war criminals are allowed to travel the world with impunity. We can commit to taking every opportunity to expose these crimes and their perpetrators for what they are.
Remembrance Day has always held profound significance for me, perhaps because I grew up on military bases among people of my parents’ generation who had experienced the horrors of World War Two.
I remember the sadness in my father’s eyes when he would mull over faded pictures of a friend who never came home. I remember chuckling about the lighter moments of POW life related by a friend’s father, but registering how he refused to talk about what it was like to be captured at Dieppe. I often think of another long lost friend, the son of a bomb disposal expert, who was forced to watch his psychologically damaged father commit suicide in a drunken stupor some 20 years after the war ended.
While I make a point of observing Remembrance Day, I shun the large military gatherings with the mournful buglers and the howitzers’ deafening “salutes.” To me, these kinds of observances seem calculated to ensure we will continue to view war as equal measures of valour and glory. They do not present war as what it is: legalized murder and clear evidence that, after millennia of evolution, we still lack the imagination it takes to live in peace.
Remembrance Day has its origins in the wake of World War One: the so-called “war to end war.” While WW1 has often been presented as a struggle between the forces of democracy and tyranny, it was, in reality, a clash of empires that yielded 40 million deaths and laid the basis for an even larger conflagration a generation later.
WW1 is often portrayed as when Canada “came of age.” Canada won the right to play with the big dogs by sacrificing (in round numbers) almost 67,000 of its sons and daughters. I’ve often wondered how our lives would have differed if this tremendous human potential had not been squandered, in Flanders and elsewhere.
Every Canadian who went through our school system is familiar with the poem by Colonel John McCrae, himself a casualty of “The Great War.”
In Flanders Fields
written in 1915 by John McCrae
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
For me, the poppy is an object of meditation on the tragedy of blood needlessly spilled over the past century, and on the folly of our latest military adventure in Afghanistan. Switching imperial masters, we now send our troops to kill and to die on behalf of the American Empire, the British Empire having passed its best-before date sometime around 1945.
The poppy is iconic; in a curious way, it unites us. You will find it on the lapels of peaceniks and militarists and everyone in between.
The poppy is sacred: it reminds us of young lives brutally snuffed.
The poppy is evil: it urges us to “take up our quarrel with the foe.”
The poppy is a major source of income in Afghanistan for corrupt government officials, warlords and insurgents alike.
I won’t be attending any Remembrance Day ceremonies this year, either. But I will be wearing my poppy, and I will remember.
Every Nov. 11, I get a little weepy.The knowledge that behind the solemn ceremonies and the 21-gun salutes from capitals across the country lie millions of premature deaths and incalculable suffering is overwhelming.
This weekend, the Vimy Ridge Memorial in France has been re-opened and our political and military leaders are mouthing platitudes about sacrifice, democracy, and nation-building. 3,598 Canadians were killed and 7,104 wounded in the battle of Vimy Ridge, and so it is only fitting that we lay to rest some of the bullshit that has been flowing, ostensibly in their memory.
Much is made of the valour and sacrifice of the Canadians at Vimy. Valour means courage under fire and to be sure, our ancestors were brave. One account of the battle says the artillery barrage was so loud it could be heard in southern England, 100 miles away. Imagine the fear this din would have inspired on all sides; imagine being able to stand up and walk, much less fight, in this hellish environment.
And they were sacrificed – gutted on the altar of imperial ambition. Four empires: the Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian disintegrated, and the Allies divided up the spoils. We continue to reap that whirlwind in the Middle East, among other places.
Democracy? I suppose it’s a relative term, even today. Prior to WW1 the Germans had an emperor and a parliament; we had a king and a parliament. Women were not allowed to vote in either country. Citizens and combatants on both sides were force-fed a stew of lies about their evil adversaries, but looking back over 90 years, it is difficult to see WW1 as a struggle for democracy.
Nation building? In Canada, the battle of Vimy Ridge is portrayed as key breakthrough in the evolution of Canada from a British colony to an independent state. Under British command, Canadians planned, led, provided most of the Allied fighters at Vimy and prevailed. Their blood, we are told, helped us win a seat at the Versailles peace negotiations, which led to our ever growing autonomy on the world stage (which presumably led us to our present status as a vassal of the American Empire — but I digress).
The folks who depend on a compliant source of cannon fodder for current and future wars want us to believe that the battle of Vimy Ridge was a GOOD THING. They want us to believe that Canada “came of age” in the Great War. WW1 is presented as an essential rite of passage, sanctified by our emerging nationhood, almost an historical inevitability if we were ever to find our place in the world. Today’s warmongers are even trying to bask in the reflected glow of long ago bombardments as they direct our young people to slaughter in Afghanistan. (National Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor put it this way: “And much like the Battle at Vimy Ridge, our involvement in Afghanistan is, in many ways, helping to define us as a nation today. A nation that stands up for what we believe in.”)
But consider this: of the 620,000 Canadians who fought in the Great War, 67,000 were killed and 241,000 were wounded. Imagine what a country we might have built if these young men had remained at home, with their families, in their communities.
Friends of mine have an old photo hanging in their dining room of a large gathering of Winnipeggers, taken sometime in the 1920s. One is struck by the conspicuous absence of young men.
Paul S. Graham 