(This post was written for rabble.ca's election coverage.)
The quality of Canadian democracy took it on the chin yesterday when the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc took the position that the leader of the Green Party should be excluded from the TV debates.
A Bloc spokesperson later said Duceppe would have participated in the debates whether or not May was included. That left Harper and Layton insisting that they would not show up for debates in which the Green leader was present.
That Harper would do this is no surprise. He hopes that after October 14, he won’t have to pay attention to anyone.
But the NDP.
NDP campaign official Brad Lavigne explained that Layton would withdraw from debates including May on the grounds “that it would be patently unfair to have two people advocating for Mr. Dion to be prime minister in the debate.”
Huh?
Lavigne is entitled to think that the Greens are too close to the Liberals. I’m entitled to believe, as I do, that the Greens are a sentiment in search of a party. But the fact is that a sizeable number of Canadians voted for the Greens last time. They are a federally funded party. They now have an MP, a former Liberal, who joined them. People can think what they like about this MP. But let’s shake ourselves awake. The Greens are awfully similar, in size and shape, to the Bloc and the Reform Party when they were included in the debates in 1993.
Jack Layton should be prepared to face Elizabeth May head on in the debates where he can make the case that a vote for the Greens is a vote for a party that is unclear on a host of issues, and not all that good on the environment. He could use the debates to say that this country desperately needs proportional representation.
This week at York, I’m going to get an earful about this from my students. They’re not old enough to remember the glory days of Tommy Douglas when the NDP was a fighting party. They’re already inclined to see the NDP as an old-line party and this is not going to help.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
We Need a Debate on the War
(written for rabble.ca's coverage of the election.)
The days between the dropping of the writ and the election are precious. This is the only time the politicians pay serious attention to what Canadians think.
The great issue on which Canada’s famous “elite consensus” has shut out debate has been the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan. The mainstream media provide few opportunities to those who believe the mission should be ended. In Parliament, the Conservatives and the Liberals made an unsavoury deal to extend the mission to 2011. Only the NDP, as it resolved at its 2006 national convention, has said clearly that Canada should bring the troops home from Kandahar.
Jack Layton showed courage on the issue and took a lot of abuse for it. Remember “Taliban Jack.”
In recent months, Canadians have moved en masse on the issue---over fifty-five per cent want the troops brought home and two thirds believe the mission has failed. The people have rejected the elite consensus on Afghanistan. Now they need leadership. Jack Layton made the point when he launched his campaign that he intends to offer Canadians fundamental change to open their eyes to the benefits of an NDP government. To make this real, he needs to go where none of the other leaders is prepared to go on Afghanistan. He should say that an NDP government will bring the troops home. He should say that he will raise the issue of the war every day from now to October 14.
Ninety-six Canadian soldiers have died in this dirty war, proportionally the highest toll for any NATO country. Canadians have figured out that this war is not about human rights and the installation of democracy and the rule of law in Afghanistan. They know that in its treatment of prisoners of war, its links to the heroin trade, and its ties with warlords, the regime in Kabul is not worth the life of one more young Canadian.
This can be Layton’s hour. The war can be his defining issue.
The days between the dropping of the writ and the election are precious. This is the only time the politicians pay serious attention to what Canadians think.
The great issue on which Canada’s famous “elite consensus” has shut out debate has been the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan. The mainstream media provide few opportunities to those who believe the mission should be ended. In Parliament, the Conservatives and the Liberals made an unsavoury deal to extend the mission to 2011. Only the NDP, as it resolved at its 2006 national convention, has said clearly that Canada should bring the troops home from Kandahar.
Jack Layton showed courage on the issue and took a lot of abuse for it. Remember “Taliban Jack.”
In recent months, Canadians have moved en masse on the issue---over fifty-five per cent want the troops brought home and two thirds believe the mission has failed. The people have rejected the elite consensus on Afghanistan. Now they need leadership. Jack Layton made the point when he launched his campaign that he intends to offer Canadians fundamental change to open their eyes to the benefits of an NDP government. To make this real, he needs to go where none of the other leaders is prepared to go on Afghanistan. He should say that an NDP government will bring the troops home. He should say that he will raise the issue of the war every day from now to October 14.
Ninety-six Canadian soldiers have died in this dirty war, proportionally the highest toll for any NATO country. Canadians have figured out that this war is not about human rights and the installation of democracy and the rule of law in Afghanistan. They know that in its treatment of prisoners of war, its links to the heroin trade, and its ties with warlords, the regime in Kabul is not worth the life of one more young Canadian.
This can be Layton’s hour. The war can be his defining issue.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
And they're off
(From now until election day, I'll be making posts on the campaign on rabble.ca and will also post them here. Here's the first post.)
As recession closes in on the country, Stephen Harper is sprinting for a majority. By next spring, most Canadians who live outside the oil kingdom that is the Harper heartland will have had enough of an economic strategy that favours Big Oil and lets the manufacturing sector and the sectors that rely on it crumble.
Speaking outside Rideau Hall, Stephen Harper shrugged off the idea that he was running to win a majority. But the Big Bad Wolf about to swallow Little Red Riding Hood kept flashing into view despite all his best efforts. Harper’s strategy: go for a majority while never claiming that’s what he’s doing. His tactic: let the other four leaders tangle each other up so that with about 37 per cent of the vote, he can squeak to the narrowest of majorities.
Stephane Dion, surpassing low expectations, seemed serene if a little diffident and unapproachable. How he will play in Quebec where few people like him and in the rest of the country where few people know him remains to be seen. As is customary for a Liberal leader Dion made his appeal to progressives. His pitch throughout will be to try to pull social democrats and greens to his banner.
Gilles Duceppe opened strongly. This guy, who is usually ignored in English Canada, is one of the country’s most seasoned politicians. He warned Quebeckers that the Bloc is the only party that can stop the Conservatives from winning a majority across Canada. Good ploy.
Jack Layton spoke forcefully on behalf of those (the majority) who are being left behind. It’s smart for him to portray himself as running for the job of prime minister, and smarter for him to ignore the Liberals. Why didn’t he call for the troops to be brought home from Afghanistan?
Elizabeth May had passion and was the most human of the leaders. Her warning that people need to regain control of their politics will resonate, especially with the young.
Final note: is the CBC going to go with right of centre analysts from now to election day?
As recession closes in on the country, Stephen Harper is sprinting for a majority. By next spring, most Canadians who live outside the oil kingdom that is the Harper heartland will have had enough of an economic strategy that favours Big Oil and lets the manufacturing sector and the sectors that rely on it crumble.
Speaking outside Rideau Hall, Stephen Harper shrugged off the idea that he was running to win a majority. But the Big Bad Wolf about to swallow Little Red Riding Hood kept flashing into view despite all his best efforts. Harper’s strategy: go for a majority while never claiming that’s what he’s doing. His tactic: let the other four leaders tangle each other up so that with about 37 per cent of the vote, he can squeak to the narrowest of majorities.
Stephane Dion, surpassing low expectations, seemed serene if a little diffident and unapproachable. How he will play in Quebec where few people like him and in the rest of the country where few people know him remains to be seen. As is customary for a Liberal leader Dion made his appeal to progressives. His pitch throughout will be to try to pull social democrats and greens to his banner.
Gilles Duceppe opened strongly. This guy, who is usually ignored in English Canada, is one of the country’s most seasoned politicians. He warned Quebeckers that the Bloc is the only party that can stop the Conservatives from winning a majority across Canada. Good ploy.
Jack Layton spoke forcefully on behalf of those (the majority) who are being left behind. It’s smart for him to portray himself as running for the job of prime minister, and smarter for him to ignore the Liberals. Why didn’t he call for the troops to be brought home from Afghanistan?
Elizabeth May had passion and was the most human of the leaders. Her warning that people need to regain control of their politics will resonate, especially with the young.
Final note: is the CBC going to go with right of centre analysts from now to election day?
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
The American Election Campaign: Soap Operas Obscure the Underlying Debate
“We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire.”--President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 20, 2004.
“America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world and to all the inhabitants thereof.”—President George W. Bush, Second Inaugural Address, January 20, 2005.
“It is an empire [the American Empire]….without consciousness of itself as such. But that does not make it any less of an empire, that is, an attempt to permanently order the world of states and markets according to its national interests.”—Michael Ignatieff, former professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
“The Republicans took the most ascendant nation since ancient Rome and drove it into the ditch.”--James Carville, CNN interview, Denver, August 26, 2008:
“America should never undertake a war unless we're prepared to do everything necessary to succeed.”--John McCain, announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, April 25, 2007.
Churning out high drama and heart wrenching personal stories, more suited to day-time soap operas than an election campaign, the Democrats and Republicans are conducting politics as only Americans can. Watching the party conventions, one is wise to keep a box of tissues at hand to wipe away the tears. Everyone was born in a log cabin or the urban equivalent. Such sacrifices, such impeccable role models for fellow citizens. Such republican virtue---I use the term in reference to the American Republic, not the party of George W. Bush. Have Hillary and Bill reconciled, and can both of them work for Barack? Will the young man from Alaska marry the Governor’s daughter? Will everyone have to take time out from the furious name calling to put on American hats and travel to Georgia (not Central Asian Georgia) to sandbag the coast when Hanna comes ashore?
When you put aside the tissues and turn off the nightly packaged human stories, you can dig down deep to unearth the underlying narrative in this election campaign. And it is historic.
The seminal debate is about the position of the United States in the world. Embroiled in the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, with no end in sight in either war, facing regional and global challenges from Iran, from militarily resurgent Russia, and from China with its appetite for global influence, the United States is over-extended. Without being consciously aware of it, Americans are up against challenges that are remarkably similar to those that confronted the great empires of the past. The military entanglements of the United States, and the related indebtedness of the country, have brewed an economic cocktail that is much more potent than the hangover from a run of the mill recession.
A few of the ingredients in this brew:
A federal government debt that spirals toward ten trillion dollars, with neither the Republicans or the Democrats proposing policies to bring it under control. Americans pay over four hundred billion dollars to fund the interest payments on the debt.
A military budget of over 500 billion dollars annually.
Oil imports that hit Americans in the pocketbook to the tune of 500 billion dollars a year.
U.S. trade and current account deficits running over 800 billion dollars and 700 billion dollars respectively this year.
The dollar has lost ground in recent years against other major currencies such as the Euro that imperil the dollar's position as the reserve currency of the world.
The volunteer armed forces of the United States are stressed and stretched. Fighting men and women have been ground down by repeated tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Recruitment is down. The military is ill-equipped to respond to new threats.
The United States has lost respect and sympathy almost everywhere in the world.
As they face declining incomes, the credit crunch, and the skyrocketing price of energy, Americans are experiencing the costs of an American global strategy that has gone awry.
All of this adds up to imperial overstretch, a condition faced by empires over the course of history. And it doesn't help that America's political culture makes its unthinkable for American political leaders to acknowledge that the United States has constructed a worldwide empire.
In the United States, the debate about empire is blurred by the unwillingness of political leaders to acknowledge the reality of empire. Along with the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence lies at the heart of the American civic religion of national values. To state that the United States has established an empire is to blaspheme against the Declaration. But a close examination of the facts shows that creating an empire is exactly what Americans have done.
While America has often been compared to ancient Rome, in important ways its empire more closely resembles that of the ancient Athenians. The Athenians, in a perverse way, which is highly reminiscent of the practice of the United States, imposed their own model constitution on city-states they forced into their empire.
A nation that will not admit that it is an empire is not well suited to rule other peoples over the long term. This is especially true of the nation's elite, those who must insist on the martial discipline, the self-sacrifice, and the willingness to shoulder the human and financial burdens of empire during difficult times. No elite in history has been more resistant to paying higher taxes than the American elite, a political reality that makes bearing the burdens of empire much more difficult. The failure of the Roman and French upper classes to pay higher taxes played a major role in the demise of their empires.
Through a glass darkly, past all the personal dramas and the endless spinning of the party doctors, there is a tale that will be apparent to future generations if not our own.
“America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world and to all the inhabitants thereof.”—President George W. Bush, Second Inaugural Address, January 20, 2005.
“It is an empire [the American Empire]….without consciousness of itself as such. But that does not make it any less of an empire, that is, an attempt to permanently order the world of states and markets according to its national interests.”—Michael Ignatieff, former professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
“The Republicans took the most ascendant nation since ancient Rome and drove it into the ditch.”--James Carville, CNN interview, Denver, August 26, 2008:
“America should never undertake a war unless we're prepared to do everything necessary to succeed.”--John McCain, announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, April 25, 2007.
Churning out high drama and heart wrenching personal stories, more suited to day-time soap operas than an election campaign, the Democrats and Republicans are conducting politics as only Americans can. Watching the party conventions, one is wise to keep a box of tissues at hand to wipe away the tears. Everyone was born in a log cabin or the urban equivalent. Such sacrifices, such impeccable role models for fellow citizens. Such republican virtue---I use the term in reference to the American Republic, not the party of George W. Bush. Have Hillary and Bill reconciled, and can both of them work for Barack? Will the young man from Alaska marry the Governor’s daughter? Will everyone have to take time out from the furious name calling to put on American hats and travel to Georgia (not Central Asian Georgia) to sandbag the coast when Hanna comes ashore?
When you put aside the tissues and turn off the nightly packaged human stories, you can dig down deep to unearth the underlying narrative in this election campaign. And it is historic.
The seminal debate is about the position of the United States in the world. Embroiled in the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, with no end in sight in either war, facing regional and global challenges from Iran, from militarily resurgent Russia, and from China with its appetite for global influence, the United States is over-extended. Without being consciously aware of it, Americans are up against challenges that are remarkably similar to those that confronted the great empires of the past. The military entanglements of the United States, and the related indebtedness of the country, have brewed an economic cocktail that is much more potent than the hangover from a run of the mill recession.
A few of the ingredients in this brew:
A federal government debt that spirals toward ten trillion dollars, with neither the Republicans or the Democrats proposing policies to bring it under control. Americans pay over four hundred billion dollars to fund the interest payments on the debt.
A military budget of over 500 billion dollars annually.
Oil imports that hit Americans in the pocketbook to the tune of 500 billion dollars a year.
U.S. trade and current account deficits running over 800 billion dollars and 700 billion dollars respectively this year.
The dollar has lost ground in recent years against other major currencies such as the Euro that imperil the dollar's position as the reserve currency of the world.
The volunteer armed forces of the United States are stressed and stretched. Fighting men and women have been ground down by repeated tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Recruitment is down. The military is ill-equipped to respond to new threats.
The United States has lost respect and sympathy almost everywhere in the world.
As they face declining incomes, the credit crunch, and the skyrocketing price of energy, Americans are experiencing the costs of an American global strategy that has gone awry.
All of this adds up to imperial overstretch, a condition faced by empires over the course of history. And it doesn't help that America's political culture makes its unthinkable for American political leaders to acknowledge that the United States has constructed a worldwide empire.
In the United States, the debate about empire is blurred by the unwillingness of political leaders to acknowledge the reality of empire. Along with the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence lies at the heart of the American civic religion of national values. To state that the United States has established an empire is to blaspheme against the Declaration. But a close examination of the facts shows that creating an empire is exactly what Americans have done.
While America has often been compared to ancient Rome, in important ways its empire more closely resembles that of the ancient Athenians. The Athenians, in a perverse way, which is highly reminiscent of the practice of the United States, imposed their own model constitution on city-states they forced into their empire.
A nation that will not admit that it is an empire is not well suited to rule other peoples over the long term. This is especially true of the nation's elite, those who must insist on the martial discipline, the self-sacrifice, and the willingness to shoulder the human and financial burdens of empire during difficult times. No elite in history has been more resistant to paying higher taxes than the American elite, a political reality that makes bearing the burdens of empire much more difficult. The failure of the Roman and French upper classes to pay higher taxes played a major role in the demise of their empires.
Through a glass darkly, past all the personal dramas and the endless spinning of the party doctors, there is a tale that will be apparent to future generations if not our own.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The Russian-American Struggle Over Georgia
The outbreak of fighting in recent days between Russian and Georgian forces for control of the Georgian province of South Ossetia takes place against the backdrop of the geo-strategic struggle for control of the petroleum resources of Central Asia. Deeply involved are the Russians and the Americans.
The Caspian Sea region is home to major petroleum reserves. Kazakhstan has proven reserves of 30 billion barrels of oil and Azerbaijan has reserves of 7 billion barrels. Georgia is crucially placed for the shipment of oil to world markets.
For the Russian government, petroleum is a tool that can be used to launch the country as a renewed great power, allowing it to acquire considerable authority in the regions that made up the former Soviet Union. While Washington favors the rapid development of Russian petroleum because it provides an alternative for the West to Middle Eastern supplies, the Bush administration has been wary of policies that can reconstitute Russia as an economic and therefore military threat. While George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin made a great show of their personal friendship in the early days of the Bush presidency, this was soon followed by much frostier relations. At the heart of the tensions was petroleum.
The battle over oil from the Caspian Sea region has involved selling arms to governments and to political movements intent on overthrowing governments. It involved major petroleum companies that were determined to cash in on the potential bonanza. And it involved battles over the pipeline routes that would be used to ship the oil to market. While the Russians wanted the petroleum from Azerbaijan to flow into their pipeline system and to markets from there, the US was opposed to the Russian route for this Caspian region oil. The preferred US route was to build a pipeline through Georgia and Turkey, the latter a staunch American ally and a member of NATO. The pipeline would carry the petroleum to a Turkish Mediterranean port and from there, by tanker, to markets.
During the late 1990s, the Americans poured money into the region and feted the leaders of the Caspian Sea states at White House dinners. To make the pipeline economically viable----its price tag was $3.1 billion---the petroleum companies told Washington that government money would be needed. The US, UK, Japan and Turkey agreed to subsidize the project. In 1999, President Bill Clinton journeyed to Istanbul to initial the deal for the construction of the pipeline.
The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, now completed, is one of the largest post-Soviet engineering projects. In May 2005, it began the delivery of oil along its 1,776-kilometer (1,104-mile) length from the Baku fields to the Mediterranean. The pipeline, operated by BP, included the participation of British, French, American, Italian, Japanese and Norwegian companies, as well as the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan. It delivered 800,000 barrels of oil daily earlier this year, but has been temporarily shut down in recent weeks as a result of an explosion. The pipeline's capacity is expected to be expanded to about 1.5 million barrels a day in the near future.
The pipeline is an economic, but also a political, venture. With Washington calling the shots in the background, a route that is secure from a Western point of view has been selected in preference to alternative and shorter routes through Russia or Iran.
Raising the stakes still higher in this contest over pipeline routes was the question of how the petroleum of Kazakhstan would flow to markets. Washington proposed that Kazakhstan (located on the eastern side of the Caspian Sea) and the major petroleum companies should jointly construct a pipeline beneath the Caspian to link up with the BTC pipeline to Turkey. Some oil from Kazakh sources is now reaching markets via Russian pipelines, but the proposal to hook Kazakhstan up with the BTC route remains a live option.
The US power play in the region was stepped up by the administration of President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the terror attacks on New York and Washington. Ostensibly to aid in its invasion of Afghanistan, Washington sent US forces to Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. But when the Taliban government in Afghanistan was driven from power -- much to the annoyance of Moscow -- the US decided to keep forces in these countries indefinitely. In addition, the United States provided military instructors to Georgia. These moves helped tighten the American grip on the oil-rich Caspian Sea region.
As the struggle continues, petroleum makes it a high stakes affair. The U.S. has gone so far as to propose that Georgia be admitted to membership in NATO, a development which Moscow staunchly opposes.
The Caspian Sea region is home to major petroleum reserves. Kazakhstan has proven reserves of 30 billion barrels of oil and Azerbaijan has reserves of 7 billion barrels. Georgia is crucially placed for the shipment of oil to world markets.
For the Russian government, petroleum is a tool that can be used to launch the country as a renewed great power, allowing it to acquire considerable authority in the regions that made up the former Soviet Union. While Washington favors the rapid development of Russian petroleum because it provides an alternative for the West to Middle Eastern supplies, the Bush administration has been wary of policies that can reconstitute Russia as an economic and therefore military threat. While George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin made a great show of their personal friendship in the early days of the Bush presidency, this was soon followed by much frostier relations. At the heart of the tensions was petroleum.
The battle over oil from the Caspian Sea region has involved selling arms to governments and to political movements intent on overthrowing governments. It involved major petroleum companies that were determined to cash in on the potential bonanza. And it involved battles over the pipeline routes that would be used to ship the oil to market. While the Russians wanted the petroleum from Azerbaijan to flow into their pipeline system and to markets from there, the US was opposed to the Russian route for this Caspian region oil. The preferred US route was to build a pipeline through Georgia and Turkey, the latter a staunch American ally and a member of NATO. The pipeline would carry the petroleum to a Turkish Mediterranean port and from there, by tanker, to markets.
During the late 1990s, the Americans poured money into the region and feted the leaders of the Caspian Sea states at White House dinners. To make the pipeline economically viable----its price tag was $3.1 billion---the petroleum companies told Washington that government money would be needed. The US, UK, Japan and Turkey agreed to subsidize the project. In 1999, President Bill Clinton journeyed to Istanbul to initial the deal for the construction of the pipeline.
The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, now completed, is one of the largest post-Soviet engineering projects. In May 2005, it began the delivery of oil along its 1,776-kilometer (1,104-mile) length from the Baku fields to the Mediterranean. The pipeline, operated by BP, included the participation of British, French, American, Italian, Japanese and Norwegian companies, as well as the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan. It delivered 800,000 barrels of oil daily earlier this year, but has been temporarily shut down in recent weeks as a result of an explosion. The pipeline's capacity is expected to be expanded to about 1.5 million barrels a day in the near future.
The pipeline is an economic, but also a political, venture. With Washington calling the shots in the background, a route that is secure from a Western point of view has been selected in preference to alternative and shorter routes through Russia or Iran.
Raising the stakes still higher in this contest over pipeline routes was the question of how the petroleum of Kazakhstan would flow to markets. Washington proposed that Kazakhstan (located on the eastern side of the Caspian Sea) and the major petroleum companies should jointly construct a pipeline beneath the Caspian to link up with the BTC pipeline to Turkey. Some oil from Kazakh sources is now reaching markets via Russian pipelines, but the proposal to hook Kazakhstan up with the BTC route remains a live option.
The US power play in the region was stepped up by the administration of President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the terror attacks on New York and Washington. Ostensibly to aid in its invasion of Afghanistan, Washington sent US forces to Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. But when the Taliban government in Afghanistan was driven from power -- much to the annoyance of Moscow -- the US decided to keep forces in these countries indefinitely. In addition, the United States provided military instructors to Georgia. These moves helped tighten the American grip on the oil-rich Caspian Sea region.
As the struggle continues, petroleum makes it a high stakes affair. The U.S. has gone so far as to propose that Georgia be admitted to membership in NATO, a development which Moscow staunchly opposes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)