Canadian Polemic

We all know that Paul Martin likes to take his time in making decisions, and the appointment of Frank McKenna to be Canada's new Ambassador to the United States was no exception. I wasn't sure about McKenna at first, but you have to give the PM credit for breaking a bit with tradition. Sure, he's a Liberal and no doubt close to Mr Martin - but he's no career diplomat. He's a politician, through and through. It could have gone wonderfully or just atrociously.

I, for one, am very impressed - I think that it's much closer to the former than the latter. I think that McKenna is doing a bang-up job in Washington representing Canada. He's being aggressive in promoting our country's interests but without being abrasive, which is just what we need. Washington is a busy place, and while I do see all the merits of quiet diplomacy, I'm not sure if it's the place for it. He's also being innovative and going outside the diplomatic box, which is also proving useful.

See McKenna's newest initiative, called Connect 2 Canada. The mission? Create a network throughout the United States of Canadian expats, armed with facts about bilateral relations and cross-border commerce. It's not an exclusively original idea on McKenna's part, but it should prove to be very useful in terms of advancing our agenda south of the border.

So kudos to McKenna on a job very well done so far - he's proved his critics wrong and played a big role in turning the Canado-American relationship around. I hope that he keeps it up in the future, and who knows? Perhaps someday we may see his name on a slate for candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Nicholas Kristof, frequent contributor to the New York Times, has got it absolutely right in his newest column, found here. He talks about how the media must pay more attention to such crises as Darfur, and I really couldn't have said it any better myself. As he writes, instead of focussing page after page on Michael Jackson or Tom Cruise, the media should be looking at the more important global issues of the day. I wrote about this kind of thing a few weeks ago, and this is encouraging to see. Hopefully more individuals in the major media networks take note of this.

Definitely some good news coming out of Quebec tonight for Canadian Liberals - the Globe and Mail article found here writes about a new Decima poll that shows that Liberal decimation in the province might not be quite as severe as it had been. Liberal support is now up to 28%, which is significantly up from earlier numbers.

Granted, it's not the end of the road, by any means. The Bloc still stands at about 50%, which is quite substantial - but not insurmountable. We're not finished the long journey back from our position in the low double-digits, but the trajectory is upwards - and that's great news. Liberal support needs to be reasonably stable and high in Quebec by the time the full Gomery report comes around - it's likely to take another hit once that document comes out. But this is certainly a welcome step.

Glad to see that some American Senators, Republican and (particularly) Democrat, are seeing reason on the Roberts nomination - see the New York Times article here. Certainly, this isn't the end of the road, but we're not hearing the kind of nasty rhetoric that could be cropping up at this point. Congress should keep things civil at the very least, and Democrats should only start pulling things like filibusters if Roberts is demonstratively interested in legislating from the bench. At that point, he'll deserve to be stopped.

There's going to be a lot of writing on John G Roberts, American President George W Bush's nominee for the United States Supreme Court. He'll be lauded by the right and demolished by the left - both sides will come out in what promises to be a rather nasty battle to the death.

And then there's the centrists, like myself.

Now, I will probably disagree with Mr Roberts on most issues - and so will a great many Democrats in the American Senate. But that's not a good enough reason to hold up his nomination and make this contest nastier than it needs to be. The American Supreme Court should be balanced - we need both liberal and conservative voices sitting on its benches.

I hope that both American Republicans and Democrats recognize this, and give Mr Roberts what he deserves - a fair hearing. He's an accomplished member of the legal profession, and agree with him or not, he's certainly qualified. So long as he does not seek to legislate from the bench, he should be confirmed as soon as possible. America needs smart, qualified judges on their highest court - but they don't need aggresive, activist judges who seek to do the job of the President and Congress.

Related Reading
Scrutinizing John Roberts (New York Times)

Perhaps it's not quite that dire, but it's not too far off. I was speaking to my uncle this past weekend, who was visiting from Spain, and he told me briefly about Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's plans to rather significantly alter the Spanish constitution. Apparently, Zapatero is the kind of guy who is always interested in listening and finding a compromise - the kind of federalist who is willing to deal with the Spanish autonomous regions pretty liberally. And by that, I mean he's willing to give these autonomous regions (similar to Canadian provinces) much, much more power. My uncle was saying that some of the autonomous regions are proposing that they set a limit on how many tax dollars they'll send to Madrid (effectively tying the federal government's fiscal hands) and that Zapatero is open to all suggestions.

My uncle also mentioned that, as Europe is a continent of coalitions, the breakdown in Spain is generally the right-wing party (Partido Popular) against all others. This, in turn, puts the Socialists of Zapatero in bed in most of the autonomous regions and nationally with the separatist movements. This adds an entirely different angle to the discussison.

The Spanish constitution was written in 1978, after the fall of dictator Francisco Franco, and has only been amended once, to allow citizens of the EU to stand in all Spanish elections. Several sections of the constitution are protected - this means that if you want to amend them, you must completely rewrite the entire constitution - they're that central to the philosophy of the Spanish regime.

Zapatero wants to amend some of these protected sections, which is a rather significant change. I think that the most dangerous issue here, however, is the possibility that Spain might become even more decentralized under a new Constitution. Madrid has got to remain strong and in control of, at the very least, its pursestrings. A federal government that is subject to the whims of the provinces on something so fundamental as budgeting is not a very strong federal government. If such reforms were to pass, which they may not due to the 3/5 majority needed in each house, I would think that the Spanish federation would be very tenuous indeed.

Zapatero has got to look long-term and preserve the Spanish federation - even if it causes him trouble in the polls, he should reject his alliances with the separatist movements. The political fragmentation of such an important Western European state would be disasterous. If Zapatero cannot push himself to act truly nationally and in the interests of the Spanish state, voters should put fears of terrorism aside and move quickly in the next election to remove him from office and return a government that will, at the very least, preserve Spanish nationhood.

Related Reading
Spanish Constitution of 1978 (Wikipedia)

So I saw War of the Worlds tonight, starring Tom Cruise. It certainly wasn't Academy Award material, but it was thoroughly enjoyable - I sound like Siskel and Ebert. Regardless, it was really entertaining, and did what it was supposed to do as a summer adventure/disaster thriller blockbuster.

I think that the part of the movie that left me the most shaken wasn't the bloodthirsty aliens, nor the vaporization of hundreds of people. It wasn't even the dozens of corpses floating down the river, or the creepy man with the shotgun in the farmhouse basement. It was a scene where Tom Cruise and his daughter are desperately trying to escape the coming onslaught, and they're surrounded by a mob that wants to steal their car - the only working one in New Jersey.

The mob is made up of normal people - folks who might otherwise be surgeons, lawyers, plumbers, you name it. But in that kind of emergency situation, they're looking out for themselves and their loved ones - and they become almost primal as they try to do so. They will do anything to stay alive, or to get one foot further away from potential death. All the shrouds of a normal society are cut away, and people become almost animalistic once more. It's disturbing to see people so devoid of rationality and civility, fighting and killing over the simplest things.

I spoke to someone after about it, wondering almost innocently if people would really act like that in such a situation. "Of course," they replied. "I definitely think people would act like that, trying to protect their families." The more I think about it, the more I agree. Most people seem so normal in day-to-day life, in the context of civilization and society - but how would we act in a situation where there are no rules, where it's everyone for themselves, where our very survival is at stake?

I'm willing to bet that it'd be pretty close to that mob situation - and that's pretty terrifying. I like to think that I'd be rational, that I would continue to be civil and compassionate. But I'm really not sure. I hope that I don't ever have to test out that thought.

Congratulations are in order to the 32 409 people living in Monaco's 1.95 square kilometers - they have a new monarch! Prince Albert took the throne earlier today, and promise to clean up Monaco's international image as a tax haven. "I intend to have ethics as the basis of the behavior of Monaco authorities," he told his subjects after being blessed. "Money and virtue should always go hand in hand."

Good luck, Prince Albert! Best of luck for you and the people of Monaco in the years ahead!

The term of Canada's Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, will expire this September - though PM Paul Martin has already extended it once, so you never really do know. Regardless, the wheels of speculation in the Canadian media are already turning. The Prime Minister will likely choose a new GG in the coming weeks or months - but bandying around more possible names for the position is a waste of time.

Adrienne Clarkson has taken a lot of flak in her six-year tenure as the Queen's representative in Canada, mostly for what some see as an opulent or frivolous lifestyle. Granted, she and her partner John Ralston Saul aren't really the most common folks, but let's think about the purpose of the office. It's the job of the GG to promote Canada abroad, to ensure that Parliament works properly, and to serve as a uniting force for the country. Most of the GG's opponents have slammed her for her many trips around the world, and have called for either drastic cuts in her office's budget or the abolishment of the office completely.

Now again, Adrienne certainly hasn't connected very much with your average Canadian, I'll give you that. You don't see her and John Ralston out for a beer in Flin Flon, Manitoba or playing hockey in Corner Brook, Newfoundland. I'll admit that this is a big weakness - the GG is supposed to bring Canadians together, and I'm not sure that Adrienne does that. This is an important part of the position that the PM should keep in mind when he makes his choice.

But she has done her job in other respects - we may think that her travels are opulent, but she's supposed to promote Canada internationally. Adrienne, a culturally-aware, intelligent and articulate Canadian, is exactly who I want telling the world about how great our country. And Parliament hasn't exactly collapsed on us yet - though some observers would challenge her performance in that regard as well. The office of the Governor General is a ceremonial office, this is true. It's an office that requires money and travelling to function properly, and I'm willing to spend an appropriate amount of money to ensure that our Governor General can do her job with dignity. Of course, we shouldn't go overboard - but in my view, Adrienne hasn't reached that limit. She hasn't done an amazing job as GG, but she has done reasonably well.

In the next GG, I'd like to see someone who can continue to promote Canada effectively abroad (as Adrienne Clarkson has done), but who can also connect with the people of this country and convince them of the office's importance. We need a balance of both in the next occupant of Rideau Hall, to ensure the continuance of our proud traditions and to make them even stronger and more relevant.

Related Reading
Clarkson successor must be named soon, observers say (Globe and Mail)
Governor General of Canada (Rideau Hall)

This week marked the ten-year anniversary of the massacres in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica. 13 July 1995 - Dutch peacekeepers hand over 5 000 unarmed Muslims to Serbian forces in exchange for 14 Dutch hostages. Days later, reports stream into news agencies, speculating that upwards of 7 000 Muslim men have been slaughtered by Serbian forces. Srebrenica, once a "United Nations Safe Area", is now a synonym for mass murder.

Eleven years ago this April, an estimated 800 000 Rwandan Tutsis were murdered within 100 days, most of them by machete. My friend John, from Rwanda, survived - but most of his family did not. It was a monumental tragedy that the world stood by and offered apologies after the fact - but you already know that.

One would think that after having witnessed so many of these massacres, we would, as a society, be able to prevent them. One would think that having witnessed the way in which these events tear lives and families to shreds, we would be willing to stand forward, speak boldly and end them.

One would think wrong.

Ten years after Srebrenica, eleven after Rwanda, human rights abuses, massacres and acts of violence and hatred continue to pervade the planet. The best-known example is that of the Sudanese Darfur region - the janjaweed militias continue to slaughter thousands of innocent people - but the list goes on. Around the world, leaders and governments make statements that simply don't cut it - they play the diplomatic game, but they don't show the moral leadership that we need.

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin:

I remain deeply and personally concerned about the situation in southern Sudan and the crisis in Darfur.

American President George W Bush:

The world cannot ignore the suffering of more than one million people. The US will continue to help relieve suffering, as we demand that the Jinjaweed disarm, and that the Government, Jinjaweed, and Darfur rebels end the violence.

South African President Thabo Mbeki:

We are saying that you have got to work with the Sudanese government, for instance, so that it becomes part of the solution; we've got to work with the rebel movements in Darfur so that they become parties to this solution there, so that the outcome we get is a stable political settlement, an end to the violence, a return of all the people of Darfur to their homes and villages. That's what we've got to do.

[...]

If you denounce, let us say, the government of Sudan as genocidal, what's next? Then don't you have to arrest the president? We’re looking for a solution to the problem, and the solution doesn't lie in making radical statements, not for us as Africans.

In most cases, the world's leaders are afraid to stand up and call something what it truly is - they're afraid to stand up and say that something is wrong. Beyond that, they refuse to take action to back up their words. Instead, they want to talk and debate and discuss and involve all parties - even those who are aiding and abetting murder. Don't get me wrong, dialogue and discussion is certainly important. But there comes a point where we must grit our teeth and act. Britain's Tony Blair perhaps said it best when he told us: "Enough talking - it is now time to do."

Perhaps part of this problem involves the media, who have a tendency of moving on to new topics quickly and leaving old ones in the dust. Can you remember the last newspaper article you read on Darfur? I certainly can't - but the massacres continue.

It's clear to me that this world has lost its moral compass - or at least has forgotten how to follow the directions that it gives. Regardless, on the tenth anniversary of Srebrenica, we should take the opportunity to make a concerted effort to find that voice of conscience again. We need to continue to make this an issue, and make our leaders act. We need to find a way to return the world's moral compass - I'm just not sure how, yet.

Related Reading
Timeline: Siege of Srebrenica (BBC)
Rwanda: How the genocide happened (BBC)
The Wages of Denial (New York Times)

I was treated today to a spectacular performance of Shakespeare's The Tempest at the Stratford Festival today, starring William Hutt. Mr Hutt is probably one of the best actors in Canada, and this is the last production of anything that he's ever doing. The show was brilliant, and it reminded me how talented Mr Hutt actually is. He played the lead role of Prospero, and his final soliloquy was a farewell address - good for both the character and for Mr Hutt's last season. The title of this post is one of Prospero's lines in the play.

There's not really any political message to this post at all - suffice it to say that as Canadians, we should be proud of our artistic talent and support it as much as we can. It was an outstanding production, and William Hutt and the Stratford Festival should be proud. Take a look if you're going to be in Southwestern Ontario this summer.

It seems that there could be a new player on the Canadian Liberal political scene, and not a moment too soon. Speculation has been rife for a while now about Michael Ignatieff's partisan possibilities, and this news article from a few weeks ago confirms it.

Mr Ignatieff is a scholar, academic and author by trade, and is currently heading up the Carr Centre for Human Rights at Harvard University. He's written a number of books about topics such as political ethics, the issue of rights, and more. Now, while he's been in the States for about three decades, he still has good Canadian connections. His father was George Ignatieff, a top Canadian diplomat during the Cold War, and he grew up in Toronto. Speculation reached fever pitch when he delivered a brilliant speech to this spring's federal Liberal convention in Ottawa. In his speech, he outlined his vision of Liberalism, and gave a Trudeauesque reminder of the "fundamentals of Liberal belief". Here's an excerpt from the speech:

As I see it, the Liberal party has three essential purposes: to protect and enhance our national unity, to preserve and defend our national sovereignty, to advance the cause of social justice.

[...]

Liberalism is also a politics of honesty. Being honest means looking ourselves in the mirror and asking tough questions. Can we really say the prosperity of the last thirty years has been equally shared? We know it hasn’t. We know there are more than a million children living in poverty in Canada. We know that these children come from the families of recent immigrants, minorities and aboriginal peoples. A Liberal doesn’t turn away from these facts. Liberals face them and do something about them.

I think that Michael Ignatieff is just what the party and the country needs to be a little reinvigorated. He's not a politician by trade, or a lawyer - he's an academic. He's a man who is paid to deal in ideas. For too long, fresh new ideas have been sorely lacking from the Canadian Liberal scene, and to have a man on the scene who wants to debate and discuss real principles and philosophies on Canada and the world will be tremendously valuable.

Will he find it easy to enter Liberal politics and shoot for the leadership spot (as he's expected to do)? No, he won't. He's an outsider, and he'll have to get adjusted to and deal with the rough and tumble of Canadian politics that folks like Maurizio Bevilacqua and Scott Brison have already figured out. And whether or not Canadians would embrace him as leader is also up in the air. But we've got to try something new after a disappointing, rudderless time under Paul Martin and Jean Chretien - we need some ideas and we need some vision. I think Michael Ignatieff's got it, and I'm glad to support him in his efforts as a Canadian Liberal.

Much has been made lately about the 0.7% target for foreign aid - it's the principle, first advanced by Canada in 1969, that wealthy nations should set aside 0.7% of their GDP for international aid. It topped the agenda at the recent G8 meetings in Gleneagles, Scotland, and was the source of much debate. Some nations, mainly European ones, have decided to set a timeline as to when they'll finally reach the target. Canada's PM, Paul Martin, has refused to set a timeline, and George W Bush doesn't really seem too enthused, either.

While giving more foreign aid is certainly great, the idea of this magical 0.7% target and timelines for reaching it isn't the way we should be going about helping those parts of the world that need it. Foreign aid is great, but at some point we do have to move past the notion that it will solve all of the developing world's problems.

Untying aid The fact that a huge proportion of aid given from the world's wealthy nations is tied is a problem that should be dealt with right away. Instead of trying to force nations to give more money, we should work to untie more of the aid that they're already giving. Tied aid means that it is given with restrictions - often, it must be used to buy products from the donor country. 60-75 percent of Canadian aid is tied, and an equally large (if not larger) percentage is also tied when we look at countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Japan. This will make a world of difference.

Focus on governance Again, rather than pushing for more aid, we should ensure that the aid we are giving to the developed world is given as a reward for good governance and a commitment to the rule of law. I know this seems callous, as those needy populations under dictators will not receive the same aid as other countries, but we do need to deal with the severe governance problem in parts of Africa. This kind of qualified aid should be linked with a stronger effort internationally to pressure tyrants and despots into retirement. Instead of giving Robert Mugabe $50-million in aid that will likely end up in his own personal pocket, let's give it to Thabo Mbeki of South Africa to use for AIDS work.

If we focus not so much on getting more aid to the developing world, and rather on improving the quality and effectiveness of the aid that we are currently giving, we'll be much better off.

Related Reading
Development: Tied Aid Strangling Nations, Says UN (Global Policy Forum)
Tony Blair's Summit Meeting (New York Times)

If you're reading this, consider yourself welcomed to my new blog, Canadian Polemic. It's going to be an opportunity for me to share my thoughts and hopefully spark some debate on Canadian and international political and cultural issues. Bear with me in that I probably won't be the most faithful blogger - life away from the computer is far too interesting - but I'll try and be interesting and thought-provoking when I do post.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives this definition for a polemic:

polemic: A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation.

I certainly enjoy the art of debate, of discussing and arguing about important issues, so this seems like an appropriate descriptor. Hopefully you'll agree, and give me some good opposition to my opinions after I get going.