A Fair Country No More?

The always insightful Rick Salutin of the Globe and Mail has joined the chorus of criticism about our government's response to Richard Colvin's testimony this week. But he also goes a step further, drawing a rather uncomfortable line between our possible complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees, and the Americans' behaviour at Abu Ghraib prison.

[caption id="attachment_2499" align="aligncenter" width="350" caption="Abused prisoner at Abu Ghraib, Iraq (from Wikimedia Commons)"][/caption]

Yes, I know - stay with me.

If a democracy falls in the summer, does anybody hear it?

I find it fascinating that this little item surfaces just two days after Parliament goes on summer break:

Tories withhold future war costs, citing national security concerns

OTTAWA — In a significant policy shift, the Canadian government now believes that telling the country’s taxpayers the future cost of the war in Afghanistan would be a threat to national security, Canwest News Service has learned.

The Defence Department cited a national security exemption when it censored a request under Access to Information by the federal NDP for the military costs of Canada’s military participation in the NATO-led, United Nations-sanctioned military mission to Afghanistan.

Funny that the costs of the war weren't a security concern last year. Does that mean that the lives of our troops were put a risk when the military released the exact same figures last April? Do we get to extrapolate that now to make the actual budget for the war a military secret? How about our military budget in general? After all, we wouldn't want to tip our hand to The Enemy about how many trucks and tanks we're planning to buy.

And who is going to scream over this? Our Loyal Opposition, such as it is, is on vacation until September, and the media aren't going to be wasting any breath on this sort of thing when they have summer reality shows to shill to their semi-comatose audience.

The only ones raising the alarm about this and other danger signs seem to be James Travers and The Star. I'm just not convinced there's anybody listening.

Remember

In honour of my ancestors and family members who served. Here are a few.



Modern portrait of Thomas Freeman, Loyalist, Jessup's Rangers.
He and his father John scouted for Gen. Burgoyne during the Battles of Saratoga, 1777. He was thirteen years old.


Alfred Jaques ('Yie') Truax (1897-1964), encamped at Niagara (standing in back?).
Served as army medic in WWI; later became a medical doctor.


William Frederick Holding (1897-1970)
With his parents and brother at home in the Bronx. Served in the U.S. Navy, WWI.


William Frederick Holding, Canadian Army Reserves, WWII


Gladys (Truax) Holding (1893-1976)
With her sisters picking fruit in the Niagara Peninsula as part of the Farm Service Corps ("The Farmerettes"), WWI


Alfred Warwick (1890 - 11 Aug 1918), with brother James who survived the War. Another brother, William, did not.

Kevin Page: Man of Steel

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page released his accounting of the true costs of the Afghanistan War today, which to nobody's surprise turned out to be somewhat higher than Stephen Harper's guestimate.

I love this guy. I really do. He's a devoted civil servant who clearly loves his work, despite the fact that his work is, well, accounting. Honestly, I've never seen anyone so excited about Australia's accrual method of estimating transitional costs before. He looks like a typical accountant, but watching him today, I think I got a glimpse of what sort of moxy one needs to survive as a bureaucrat in Stephen Harper's Ottawa these days.

Page was appointed to his newly created position back in March amid some controversy, partly because the Prime Minister had once again appointed a senior bureaucrat without having put him through the Public Appointments Commission that he had promised but never quite got around to creating. But from the get go it was understood that the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer was there just to make a show of adhering to the Federal Accountability Act. With a meagre budget of $2.5 million, a staff of two (now eight, including 2 interns), and a rented office in some insurance building off the Hill, it was pretty clear that nobody was taking the position seriously.

Except, apparently, Mr. Page.

For me, one of the more telling moments in Page's presentation came about 17 minutes into the Q&A portion. He had mentioned, and several reporters had asked about, the difficulties he had in getting information from various government departments. Finally, one reporter pressed him on it, leading to this humorous exchange:

Margot McDiarmid, CBC Television: You've been very diplomatic when we're asking about your frustration...

Page: I'm hoping for a future job.

McDiarmid: (laughs) But you know, in the briefing before this press conference, some of your officials reflected this frustration...

Page: I'll work on 'em. Do you have names?

McDiarmid: (laughs) I'm not giving them.

Page: I think I know who it is, actually.

He went on to talk about how important it is, six months into the job, for him to be diplomatic and to build relationships with DND and the other departments. Leading to this not so humorous exchange:

McDiarmid: Just a follow up, are you afraid of some sort of reprisal from them?

Page: No, no. Do I look afraid? I'm not afraid, I promise you I'm not afraid.

From the resolute look on his face, I believed him. I also believed that this wasn't the first time such a notion had crossed his mind.

Still, if observing the neo-conservative revolution in the U.S. for the past few decades has taught us anything, it's that competent, productive, enthusiastic civil servants like Mr. Page are a liability when the object is to prove that government is by nature incompetent and inefficient, thus justifying the transfer of its duties to private enterprise.

I give him a year. Tops.

Beyond the Pale

The trouble with engaging in military operations in a big grey area of international law... is that sometimes it comes back to bit you in the ass.

Canada may be powerless to take action in death of Canadian soldier

OTTAWA - The probe into the possible friendly fire death of a Canadian soldier by a private security force falls into a grey area of international law that could end up in Afghanistan's dysfunctional justice system, says a legal expert...

Hendin said if Canadian officials intend to diligently pursue the matter, they'll have some unpalatable and uncomfortable choices to make.

There are sections under the fourth Geneva Conventions that allow countries to prosecute civilians in other countries who wound or kill soldiers during a military operation. But to invoke those provisions the Canadian government would have toss out the claim that it's fighting an insurgency .

It would have to publicly declare Afghanistan to be in a "state of armed conflict" - a international legal definition that places an entirely new set of human rights responsibilities on Ottawa.

Today in the "Not Helping" Department...

In case you were wondering why the ruling junta in Burma might be so resistant to letting large numbers of Americans into their country with ships, planes, helicopters and equipment, this TIME headline might shed some light on their thinking:

Is it Time to Invade Burma?

[headdesk]

Ok, so the article starts off by going through some slightly less horrific options, like bringing aid workers in without government consent - somehow, or bringing the influence of China to bear, or freezing Burma's assets. But yeah, they're serious:

And if that fails? "It's important for the rulers to know the world has other options," Egeland says. "If there were, say, the threat of a cholera epidemic that could claim hundreds of thousands of lives and the government was incapable of preventing it, then maybe yes — you would intervene unilaterally." But by then, it could be too late. The cold truth is that states rarely undertake military action unless their national interests are at stake; and the world has yet to reach a consensus about when, and under what circumstances, coercive interventions in the name of averting humanitarian disasters are permissible. As the response to the 2004 tsunami proved, the world's capacity for mercy is limitless. But we still haven't figured out when to give war a chance.

Great. Just great. Aside from the utter insanity of such a scheme given Burma's relationship with China, just the fact that someone is saying this out loud is appalling, and can only give credence to the junta's paranoia about the U.S. and western aid.

Let's just hope they don't read TIME in Burma.

Romeo Dallaire: Bring Omar Khadr Home

I don't know of anyone who doesn't have the utmost respect for Retired Lt.-Gen. Romeo Dallaire - as a soldier, as a hero, and as a profoundly and deeply principled human being.

Therefore, when this man speaks out on the case of Omar Khadr, everyone should take note. Even conservatives.

Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen who was a 15-year-old child soldier when he allegedly killed a U.S. serviceman during a firefight in Afghanistan. The debate about his return to Canada must begin and end there. That the current and past Canadian governments have failed to secure his release and repatriation is a glaring instance of hypocrisy by this country that prides itself on its advocacy of human rights and adherence to international law.

Child soldiers who are Canadian citizens belong in Canada for due judicial processing and, more importantly, for rehabilitation after having been reared and coerced into extremism and violence.

All other details about Omar Khadr's activities in Afghanistan and the aftermath of his capture by U.S. forces only strengthen the argument for his return. The 15-year-old Omar was in a compound during aU.S. attack and was shot twice in the chest during the raid. After his capture, he was transferred to the U.S.'s infamous Bagram detention facility where he was processed as an adult combatant and very likely mistreated and tortured.

...Canada's Conservative government has demonstrated a sorry lack of decisiveness and effort to bring Khadr home. Our other allies recognized at the outset that Guantanamo was no place for due process, and quickly and successfully pushed for their citizens' release and repatriation. Today, Mr. Khadr is the only remaining citizen of a Western country incarcerated in Guantanamo.

Although Canada has no established system for dealing with child soldiers, we can learn much from nations that do. Rwanda and Sierra Leone, for example, countries we smugly categorize as underdeveloped, use a combination of demobilization, youth justice and rehabilitation on child soldiers who were abused and used to commit unspeakable acts.

If you still aren't convinced, you need to read the Toronto Star's excerpts from 'Guantanamo's Child', cached versions of which can still be found here and here.

As the mother of a fifteen year-old boy, I find the accounts of Khadr's treatment by both his family and his captors utterly sickening. As well, I am disgusted by critics who claim that fifteen is plenty old enough to make independent decisions. I can state categorically and from bitter personal experience that the average fifteen year-old boy doesn't even have enough sense to put on a jacket when it's cold or boots in the snow, let alone take a moral stand in the face of overwhelming pressure from family and peers.

BTW, I did find one error in Dallaire's editorial: Khadr was shot in the back, not the chest. Those holes are exit wounds.

Tomorrow Is Another Day

Shorter Jim Prentice on the MacDonald Dettwiler sale: "I don't feel like deciding today. I think I'll decide later, after everyone's stopped paying attention."

Feds delay ruling on sale of Canada's top space firm

OTTAWA -- In the face of mounting domestic pressure, Industry Minister Jim Prentice is holding off government approval of the sale of Canada's top space company and a multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded satellite to a U.S. weapons maker, CTV News has learned.

Government insiders say Prentice has ordered another 30-day review of the proposal sale that has been strongly denounced by Canadian scientists, editorial writers, and Calgary Conservative MP Art Hanger.

Remarkable how many of the comments on that article are drawing parallels with the Avro Arrow. They have some valid points, but I'm looking more at parallels with AECL. There is an emerging pattern of hiving off the most successful and profitable divisions of public companies or (like MDA) companies with significant public investment, and selling them off for a quick profit. Then the government can point to what's left and say, "See? Why should we keep throwing money at such an unprofitable enterprise?"

Kinda like eating all the carrots and croutons and bacon bits out of your salad, and then saying you don't like salad.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to watch Prentice and Harper squirm their way out of this one, because I have no doubt they are determined to see MDA sold, one way or the other.

_____________

UPDATE: This bit from the Globe & Mail really says it all, doesn't it?

"Shareholders were expecting a windfall from this transaction. At this point it may not happen," Dundee Securities Corp. analyst Richard Stoneman said yesterday.

The controversy has placed Mr. Prentice in the delicate position of having to balance pro-business considerations with concerns about Arctic sovereignty and military security.

Hmm... shareholder profits versus national security and sovereignty. Profits, sovereignty... profits... sovereignty... the corporation... the country...

Yeah, I can see that being a tough one, Jim. Let me know when you work it out.

The Afghanistan Motion v.2.1

Damn.

I hate to say it… but I can actually live with this.

I'm curious to read Dave's take, and I may well be missing something, but it looks like the Liberals got almost all of what they wanted. There are hard deadlines for the additional troops and equipment, there’s a hard timeline for disengagement even though it’s a bit more stretched out than the Liberals wanted, and there are clear parameters for the mission which focus on security and training rather than counter-insurgency, even if it doesn’t specifically say ‘non-combat’. Not to mention all the nice stuff about accountability and communication, although we know what their track record on that has been.

It doesn't say precisely what will happen if we don't get the troops and equipment, and I’m not sure exactly how we are going to “address the crippling issue of the narco-economy” without “alienating the goodwill of the local population”, but I guess we’ll see.

Shit. Crafty buggers, agreeing with us and all.

(more on this subject over at Kats 'n Dawgs)

The Death of War

The Globe & Mail will be hosting an online discussion of Canada's role in the world on Tuesday, led by a panel consisting of David Eaves, Lloyd Axworthy and Jack Granatstein. To start things off, each of them has produced an op-ed piece outlining their take on Canada's role. I found Axworthy's to be particularly insightful, and it got me thinking about the rapidly changing face of foreign policy and, more specifically, the role of the military.

It has long been observed that the military, as an institution, tends to fight the previous war rather than the present one. The nature of military hierarchy makes this inevitable, as those in the highest ranks are those whose knowledge and experience are almost entirely based in 20 or 30 year-old conflicts. And the more quickly technology and geo-political circumstances change, the more this tendency becomes a problem.

My question is this: has the world reached a point where all traditional notions of war and the role of the military have become obsolete?

Now before you all start frothing at the mouth, let me qualify that by saying that I still believe there is still a need for armed forces in this world. As long as violence is perpetrated against innocent people, there will be the need for others with the ability and the will to protect them with physical force.

What disturbs me, particularly in the debate over Afghanistan but also more generally, is the tendency of some people to continually frame the question in World War II terms. They talk about honour and glory and military might, and they denounce peacekeeping and security as unmanly pursuits advocated by Nancy-boys and tourists. Worse, they continue to cling to the notion that wars can still be won through the application of bigger armies and superior firepower.

Surely Vietnam should have disabused us all of that notion.

War itself, in the traditional sense of a conflict between two or more nations resulting in a winner and a loser, seems to be becoming extinct. Ethnic conflicts, civil wars and terrorism are now the norm, and yet we still insist on using archaic terms like 'war' - as in 'the War on Terror', 'the War in Afghanistan', even 'the War on Drugs' - to refer to conflicts that do not involve one state vs. another, that do not follow the traditional rules or tactics of war, and that are by their very nature open-ended and ultimately unwinnable.

Lester Pearson was one of the first to begin to address this new reality by establishing the notion of 'peacekeeping' during the Suez Crisis. It's a brilliant concept and one that has been extremely effective in several conflicts since. Unfortunately, peacekeeping only applies to very limited types of situations: specifically, those where there is already a peace to keep. Chronic insurgencies, ethnic-based civil wars and terrorism still defy traditional military solutions.

I am not a military person or a foreign policy analyst. I don't know what the solution is. But I do know that we are going to need to make a radical shift in our thinking if we are going to find one.

We must begin by acknowledging a fundamental paradox: that those who are directly involved in the military and military culture have a vested interest in their own continued existence. If peace were to actually become the norm, all these guys would be out of a job.

Therefore, while it is vital to have experienced members of the military involved in foreign policy decisions, we cannot assume that their advice is necessarily going to help advance the cause of peace. So when a Colonel or a General says we should follow a particular course of action in, say, Afghanistan, as impressive as their credentials might be, we need to be mindful that even with the best of intentions, their advice may simply propose the best course of action for the military, and not for us as a country or for the people we are trying to help.

We also need to recognize that the military can only be one part of any long-lasting solution to world violence and conflict. Simply marching in waving the biggest dick stick not only continues to fail to bring the desired results, but in most cases exacerbates the situation. Diplomacy, aid and development, training and education, are all at least as vital in putting an end to violent conflict as armed security and combat.

And yes, sometimes it will be necessary to go out and kill people who are trying to kill others. But if that continues to be the primary focus of a military culture obsessed with reliving past glories rather than actively contributing to making peace, then the level of violence in the world can only continue to increase.

(crossposted at Kats 'n Dawgs.)