Paul S. Graham

According to Rideau Institute president Steven Staples “I have heard that there are memos being produced inside the Canadian government today that are saying that the [Afghan] war has already been lost.”

Staples made the statement speaking at an Oct. 18, 2008 forum sponsored by Peace Alliance Winnipeg and the Canadian Federation of Students entitled “Canada after Bush: What’s at Stake?”

In his 45 minute address, Staples compared the programs of Barack Obama and John McCain and speculated on the implications of their platforms for Canada in terms of trade and the environment, climate change strategies, energy security, border issues and national security and foreign policy, especially as it pertains to Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan.

Commenting on Bush’s tragic legacy, Staples said:

In Canada, the Liberal Government of Jean Chrétien after 911 quickly implemented far reaching national security measures to harmonize our policies with US priorities with terrible results – as Canadians saw what happened when Maher Arar was trapped and tortured by the post 911 secret security apparatus that had been thrown up in the weeks that followed those attacks. While Chrétien famously refused to join the invasion of Iraq after tremendous protests, he sent us deeper into Afghanistan. One hardly notices the difference now, with so many soldiers killed and billions of dollars spent on that failing Afghan war, that we didn’t go into Iraq; the results are pretty much substantially the same.

Staples noted strong similarities between the spending policies of Bush, the two presidential candidates and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

As many commentators, such as the Globe and Mail’s Jeffrey Simpson have pointed out, neither candidate has a plan to deal with the massive US budget deficit which has been driven by Bush’s policies of big military spending and tax cuts. This may sound familiar because its these same policies that the Globe and Mail has said under Steven Harper has cost us our budget surplus. Harper’s big tax cuts and his big military spending increases now risk driving Canada into a budget deficit and an economic downturn.

Staples said it was time for Canada to develop a national energy policy that addressed Canadian needs and made it clear that Canadian oil belongs, in the first instance, to Canadians. He said this approach is not one recognized by U.S. leaders.

US leaders look at Canadian oil as part of US domestic sources; they don’t really think of Canada and all the oil we’re pumping down there as being a foreign source. They just assume it’s kinda theirs’. In fact Canada is now the number one source of oil imports to the United States and there is already a tacit agreement that tar sands production will increase five-fold by 2020 to increase the supply to the United States.

Staples expressed grave fears regarding Obama’s plans for Afghanistan and the implications for Canada.

This Obama policy of shifting thousands of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is probably the most worrisome for us in the short term. For all of the positive changes that an Obama presidency could bring, this would be a huge mistake. By simply pumping in thousands of US troops to contribute to the same counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan that they have been following all this time, Obama will only make matters worse. And that’s not all; he will try to pull other countries down with him in Afghanistan. The US will seek greater allied contributions to the war. Already – I don’t know if you saw it on CBC the other night: a senior adviser to the Obama campaign told the interviewer that he will be looking for more support from Canada. And remember, we’ve committed to another three years of fighting, to December 2011.

Wrapping up his speech, Staples outlined what he saw as Canada’s priorities following the election of a new US president. These would include renegotiating NAFTA to incorporate environmental and labour protections, developing a made-for-Canada energy policy, support for Canada’s devastated manufacturing sector, and pushing for peace in Afghanistan.

Listen to Steven Staples here

To hear Steven Staples entire address, click on Canada After Bush. (Hint: For streaming audio, click on the little red arrow.)

The Rideau Institute on International Affairs is an independent research, advocacy and consulting group based in Ottawa. It provides research, analysis and commentary on public policy issues to decision makers, opinion leaders and the public. It is a federally registered non-profit organization, established in January 2007.

Steven Staples is the president of the Rideau Institute. In the past 15 years, Steven Staples has acted as the Director of Security Programs for the Polaris Institute, the Issue Campaigns Coordinator for the Council of Canadians and the Coordinator for End the Arms Race. He is well known for his work on international defence, disarmament and trade issues.

By Carl Boggs, Counterpunch, Oct. 18, 2008

The arrest of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic in July 2008 for war crimes allegedly committed in the 1990s took the Western (especially United States) media by storm, a case that was upheld as a watershed moment in the struggle for global justice. Demonized by the Western media as an “architect of genocide” in the former Yugoslavia, Karadzic was quickly extradited from Serbia to the Hague to be prosecuted before the NATO-funded International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY), a court that had already put on trial 66 Serbs for assorted war crimes. Despite a paucity of evidence showing that Karadzic was actually involved in anything resembling genocide, the media and political elites were quick to celebrate his arrest as a triumph of international legality. Whatever Karadzic’s ultimate fate before this politically-charged tribunal, the truly odd feature of this drama is that a relatively minor figure like Karadzic could be the target of so much moralizing scorn –likened by some to another Hitler – while leaders of the most powerful war machine in history, planners of an illegal, catastrophic war and occupation in Iraq lasting almost six years, are treated with the dignity and respect of statespersons instead of being held accountable for criminal behavior dwarfing anything that took place in Yugoslavia. Within American political and media culture, of course, it has long been an article of common belief that war crimes must be the work of evil others, never Americans whose taken-for-granted noble intentions serve to immunize them legal accountability.

Might it be possible that President George Bush and his co-conspirators in military aggression will some day be held to the same international standards as the designated enemies – to the very norms that U.S. leaders themselves so righteously champion when it comes to Serbs and others? Could Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, and the entire gang of neocon ideologues responsible for bringing the Iraq debacle to the world ever be judged according to the principles of Nuremberg, the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Charter, and other canons of international law? Within prevailing American discourse, the very idea that U.S. leaders might be prosecuted for war crimes is, more than ever, beyond the scope of tolerable debate.

Article continues . . .

We live in a country where 9.97 percent of the popular vote can translate into 50 seats in Parliament (Bloc Québécois) and 6.8 percent gives you zilch (Greens).

The table below illustrates how our electoral system disproportionately allocates seats. (Thanks to Challenging the Commonplace for the table.) A rational observer has to ask why the Tories, for example, can lose almost 170,000 votes and win an additional seats. At the other end of the scale, one wonders how the Greens can improve their vote by almost 300 thousand votes and still be shut out of the House.

Voter turnout was at an all-time low of 59.1%. So-called “voter apathy” undoubtedly has many causes, however, it is not unreasonable to conclude that disgust with an undemocratic electoral system is a major one.

While this is not a new problem, there seems to be a new willingness on the part of a growing number of Canadians to do something about it. If you are one of them, or even merely curious, consider joining Fair Vote Canada.

And while you’re there, check out their video: Electoral Dysfunction: there is a cure.

After the election we’ve just endured, we need a chuckle or two.

Peace Alliance Winnipeg will be holding a rally, march and public forum on Oct. 18, 2008 in Winnipeg. These events are part of a Canada-wide series of actions to demonstrate Canadian opposition to the war in Afghanistan and Canada’s combat role in it.

“October marks the seventh year of a war that has claimed the lives of thousands of Afghans and almost a thousand NATO troops, including 97 Canadian soldiers,” says Peace Alliance Winnipeg spokesperson Glenn Michalchuk. “Most Canadians are opposed to this war and were dismayed when Parliament voted to extend Canada’s combat role to the end of 2011.”

Anti-war actions are planned for several communities in Canada, including Fredericton, Grand Forks, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg.

Public Forum

Peace Alliance Winnipeg and the Canadian Federation of Students will host a public forum entitled “Canada after Bush: What is at stake?” at the Bullman Centre in Centennial Hall, University of Winnipeg, following the march, at 3:30 p.m.

The featured speaker is Steven Staples, who is the president of the Rideau Institute. In the past 15 years, Mr. Staples has acted as the Director of Security Programs for the Polaris Institute, the Issue Campaigns Coordinator for the Council of Canadians and the Coordinator for End the Arms Race.

He is well known for his work on international defence, disarmament and trade issues. In 2006 he published his first book, Missile Defence: Round One (Lorimer), which chronicled the citizen-based campaign that succeeded in persuading the Paul Martin government to announce that it would not join the U.S. ballistic missile defence program in February 2005.

Steven Staples is a member of the Canadian Pugwash Group and the Group of 78, and also acts as the General Secretary of the international network of anti-nuclear groups, Abolition 2000.

Workers at the Winnipeg Free Press went on strike at noon on Monday. WAYNE GLOWACKI/freepressonstrike.com

A thousand employees of the Winnipeg Free Press struck, yesterday, over wages, pensions and working conditions. They will tell their story at http://www.fresspressonstrike.com and provide a local-news alternative to their employer. Their lead story chronicles the beating their boss is taking on the stock market.

Get yer news at freepressonstrike [dot] com!

No matter how the pollsters slice and dice it, two-thirds of Canadian voters do not want a Tory government. The same might be said, in greater or lesser proportions, about a Liberal, NDP or Green government.

That said, a centre-left coalition of Liberals, New Dems and Greens could probably find enough common ground to meet many of the political objectives of most Canadians. It wouldn’t be ideal, but it would be preferable to another Harper government, propped up by the Liberals — which is what we face now.

Here are five reasons why we should support a centre-left coalition:

1. A centre-left coalition would more accurately reflect the political will of the majority of Canadians who have rejected Harper and his neocons.

2. In the event that Harper gets enough seats to form a minority government, a centre-left coalition would keep him from doing so.

3. In the event that Dion gets enough seats to form a minority government, it would prevent him from playing Parliamentary footsies with the Tories and moving to the right.

4. It would give the NDP a chance to show what they could do in government at the federal level and perhaps improve their chances in future elections. The same could hold true for the Greens if they manage to get someone elected.

5. It would provide an opportunity to replace our outmoded “first past the post” electoral system with some form of proportional representation. This, in turn, would improve the prospects for democracy in Canada over the long term.

Where would the Bloc Québècois fit in this scheme? That would be up to the Bloc. I suspect they would maintain their independence and represent their constituents as they saw fit. That includes getting rid of Harper, which should mean they wouldn’t oppose a centre-left coalition until it became popular in Quebec.

Thoughts?

Does Stephen Harper rate a blue sweater or an orange jumpsuit? Canadians who haven’t heard the controversial interview between Harper and author Tom Zytaruk should review it carefully. You can hear it here.

According to the Criminal Code of Canada it is a crime to offer a bribe to a Member of Parliament. Those found guilty could face 14 years in prison. This, then, is serious offence.

Presumably, any law-abiding party leader who was aware that a bribe was going to be offered would insist that his or her party officials abide by the law.

Is our current Prime Minister law-abiding? Listen to this segment of a discussion between Stephen Harper and Tom Zytaruk about “financial considerations” offered to then terminally ill MP Chuck Cadman in exchange for his vote against a Liberal budget.

The quality of the recording isn’t great. Turn up your speakers, and read along below.

Then ask yourself some questions:

• Why didn’t Harper tell his officials to obey the law? He is, after all, a self-proclaimed “law ‘n order” guy with a reputation for controlling what his underlings do and say.
• Does Harper understand the law? Oh wait, he’s the guy who legislated fixed election dates and then called an early election.
• Do we want a Prime Minister who would countenance what amounts to a bribe to a dying MP for his vote? Does this make him an accessory?
• Wouldn’t an orange jumpsuit be more appropriate attire for our PM than a fuzzy blue sweater?

Harper-Zytaruk Transcript

Here’s what’s on the tape between author Tom Zytaruk and Harper, recorded after Cadman’s death in 2005.

Zytaruk: “I mean, there was an insurance policy for a million dollars. Do you know anything about that?”

Harper: “I don’t know the details. I know that there were discussions, uh, this is not for publication?”

Zytaruk: “This (inaudible) for the book. Not for the newspaper. This is for the book.”

Harper: “Um, I don’t know the details. I can tell you that I had told the individuals, I mean, they wanted to do it. But I told them they were wasting their time. I said Chuck had made up his mind, he was going to vote with the Liberals and I knew why and I respected the decision. But they were just, they were convinced there was, there were financial issues. There may or may not have been, but I said that’s not, you know, I mean, I, that’s not going to change.”

Zytaruk: “You said (inaudible) beforehand and stuff? It wasn’t even a party guy, or maybe some friends, if it was people actually in the party?”

Harper: “No, no, they were legitimately representing the party. I said don’t press him. I mean, you have this theory that it’s, you know, financial insecurity and, you know, just, you know, if that’s what you’re saying, make that case but don’t press it. I don’t think, my view was, my view had been for two or three weeks preceding it, was that Chuck was not going to force an election. I just, we had all kinds of our guys were calling him, and trying to persuade him, I mean, but I just had concluded that’s where he stood and respected that.”

Zytaruk: “Thank you for that. And when (inaudible).”

Harper: “But the, uh, the offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election.”

Zytaruk: “Oh, OK.”

Harper: “OK? That’s my understanding of what they were talking about.”

Zytaruk: “But, the thing is, though, you made it clear you weren’t big on the idea in the first place?”

Harper: “Well, I just thought Chuck had made up his mind, in my own view …”

Zytaruk: “Oh, okay. So, it’s not like, he’s like, (inaudible).”

Harper: “I talked to Chuck myself. I talked to (inaudible). You know, I talked to him, oh, two or three weeks before that, and then several weeks before that. I mean, you know, I kind of had a sense of where he was going.”

Zytaruk: “Well, thank you very much.”

Further reading

• CBC: Timeline – The Chuck Cadman Bribe Controversey
• Toronto Star: Tape not altered as Harper claimed . . .

On Oct. 6, Tory Joy Smith ducked a townhall meeting in Kildonan-St. Paul that was sponsored by the Council of Women of Winnipeg, Peace Alliance Winnipeg, the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba and University Women’s Club of Winnipeg.

The reluctance of Tories to attend election forums isn’t limited to Winnipeg. Harpocracy.ca lists 104 (and counting) election forums where Tories have not attended.

This confirms speculation that Stephen Harper keeps his MPs on a tight leash and dovetails nicely with his reported policy of carefully managed, invitation-only public appearances.

It also betrays Harper’s mistrust of his candidates, fear of the electorate and contempt for Canadians. No wonder his support is so deservedly declining.

Commenting on the Tories’ growing notoriety for ducking election forums in today’s Winnipeg Free Press, Marlo Campbell concludes:

It’s disrespectful and remarkably arrogant. If this is how they treat us now, what will they do if they’re re-elected?

Let’s not wait to find out. On Oct. 14, thow these bums out!

http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1916165&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1

Any credit Stephen Harper might have gotten for the historic apology to aboriginal peoples for the destruction of generations in Canada’s infamous Indian residential schools was wiped out by events at Barriere Lake in northern Quebec, on Monday.

Monday’s attack is in the spirit of Harper’s decision, a year ago, to vote against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The lead up to Monday’s busted blockade is familiar: decades of foot-dragging and neglect by federal and Quebec governments in addressing the legitimate claims of aboriginal people. According to the Ottawa Citizen

The Algonquins of Barrière Lake want the Indian and Northern Affairs Department to recognize their traditional council and chief and a federal-provincial treaty that would give them a share of natural resource profits on their land.

The unemployment rate in the community of 650 people, 300 kilometres north of Ottawa, is about 90 per cent.

In 1991, the Barrière Lake Algonquins signed an agreement with Canada and Quebec to sustainably develop its 10,000-square-kilometre territory. Since 1996, the federal government has recognized a minority group and chief that oppose the agreement.

This disgusting episode should be an election issue. Coverage in the mainstream media has been spotty. So, pass it on and make it an issue!

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Canada and Quebec use riot police, tear gas, and “pain compliance” on peaceful Algonquin families to avoid negotiations

Kitiganik/Rapid Lake, Algonquin Territory / – Yesterday afternoon (Oct. 6, 2008), the Conservative government and Quebec used riot police, tear gas, and “pain compliance” techniques to end a peaceful blockade erected by Algonquin families from Barriere Lake, rather than negotiate, as requested by the community.

The blockade on Highway 117 in Northern Quebec began at 6:00am Monday, with nearly a hundred community members of all ages and their supporters promising to remain until Canada’s Conservative government and Quebec honoured signed agreements and Barriere Lake’s leadership customs.

Around 4pm, nearly sixty Quebec officers and riot police encircled families after a meal and without warning launched tear gas canisters, one of which hit a child in the chest.

Article continues . . .