Seeking Justice

Recent events in Afghanistan have led to a provoked turn in relations between its population and the ISAF forces stationed there. There have been scores of civilian casualties from air strikes, untold terror on neighbourhoods during (necessary) Special Ops night raids, a souvenir video of US troops urinating on dead Taliban fighters earlier this year and the recent accidental burning of Korans. Sarcastic bravo. Now 16 civilians, including children, have been massacred their homes during the early hours of the morning by a US Staff Sgt.; needless to say tensions are on a knife’s edge.

mourning the victims

There is undoubtedly a need for justice in this case, but in whose hands to place the responsibility to decide what form it should take? The Afghan Parliament has called for the soldier in question to be handed over to Afghan authorities, so that he might be tried under Afghan law. In a society that has seen little progress beyond medieval customs and attitudes towards punishment, the narrative of asking an eye for an eye is expected. But there is more to the Afghan argument than the desire for blood, as it were.  

Regardless of the psychological trauma that likely led this soldier (on his 4^th combat tour) to commit such an atrocity (which might lead to a sympathetic outcome in a US military tribunal), there is a prevailing sense in Afghanistan that US and ISAF forces have been able to take innocent life without punishment or justice. This leads to a much bigger issue than that of a ‘rogue’ soldier.

Afghans have been suffering civilian casualties for more than a decade now. Weddings have been bombed with laser-guided munitions, children playing on wreckage have been mistaken for insurgents and were killed, civilians are caught in the cross-fire during complicated Special Ops raids and those are just three out of countless examples. When civilians are killed and ISAF forces are judged to have been in the wrong, ‘sincere’ apologies ring out from the officer staff and diplomatic corps.

In addition to the apologies, which I would imagine in most cases are sincere, the families of the deceased are given approximately $2000 US as compensation for the loss of life. The sad reality is that if anything remotely similar happened in the United States, Canada or most other NATO countries, the government would end up shelling out a considerable fortune in punitive damages while public inquiries would be demanded instantly. Our society, Western society, is committing war crimes in distant lands yet it seems little is actually being done to hold individuals – or institutions for that matter – to account.  

Though civilian casualties are at times unavoidable in conflict and even more so in urban warfare, they have been far too high for the type of low-intensity, ‘win the hearts and minds’ counterinsurgency operations exercised in the Afghanistan campaign. For the average Afghan, hearing of civilian deaths almost weekly would surely cause a completely justifiable rage about the nature and intentions of foreign troops (as well as Taliban for that matter). Being unable to see any measure of justice would only magnify that.

So, when there is news of Afghan deaths and little or nothing is done two crucial things happen: the Taliban and friends grow stronger and their often harsh but expeditious form of justice is craved (as fate would have it this latest event happened in the Taliban's traditional region), and the people slowly creep towards a threshold in which they will reject any foreign help. Either outcome is unacceptable, but perhaps there is a third that might present itself in the future. Perhaps this event, as tragedies have so often done throughout history, will unite the people of Afghanistan to a common future. That it might be directed at ISAF and NATO forces for some time is understandable, but maybe that’s what it will take for their country to finally become whole. Afghanistan can emerge from this tragedy with a united national psyche that will have taken a step further towards internal reconciliation and will move from the shadows of clan and tribal loyalties that have for centuries shaped the geopolitcal landscape of the rugged nation. That’s my hope.

In the meantime, the US should not protect those who exist beyond the shores of humanity, yet the precedent of handing their troops over to foreign governments would have domestic repercussions of its own. Politics should not frame the debate over the implementation of justice, the moral right should.      

Spelled as ‘Hiz’ or ‘Hez’ or ‘Absent’**

The march of democracy in lands long held by an entrenched political class tends to fill the winds with the stale odour of spilled blood and the gentle chiming of spent shell-casings as they celebrate their release once they hit the ground, through dancing that betrays their lethal purpose. This is a truism in the many such transitions throughout history, including the initially successful – though currently stalled – revolution in Egypt, was present in Bahrain, and as the case would have it has become the headline in Syria. The Assad government has demonstrated excessive force against civilian populations that are largely unarmed.

Protestors are great at shouting slogans of democratic reform; while only the foolish or brave dare brandish a weapon in the face of an army. It has sadly been a rather one-sided affair, with the civilian death toll numbering roughly 5 000 and growing. Of these women and children have been involved, and the Syrian army has dispatched snipers to pick-off protestors, tanks to attack civilian centers, and infantry to kill or capture any defecting security forces.

hope cracked, not shattered

What the movement is hoping to achieve is as simple as it is complex: democratic change. The Assad government has failed in its efforts to expedite reform, having instead decided to cling to power through brutality and force. It should be noted that in most cases, when the state loses its monopoly over the legitimacy of force in society, it always leads to civil disorder. In this case Syria has managed to do this through the kind of barbarism that despots and dictators use as a fail-safe.

So who will champion the cause of the Syrian people? While there is the Free Syria Army that has emerged since the outbreak of violence, their organizational structure is limited. It can be said that guerrilla tactics are valuable in the kind of asymmetrical (ie. David v. Goliath) conflict that is taking place in Syria, especially for the psychological edge that small successes can give the insurgents/freedom fighters. But a lack of numbers, equipment and sound organizational structure will hamper their results, as was the case in the Libyan revolution.

Though it is likely foreign intelligence services and militaries have a profound interest (and active hand) in the outcome of the Assad regime and the nature of its successor, the scope of the conflict and the volatile mood of an incredibly complex population might hinder any positive results. Surely organizations such as The Activity, the CIA, MI6, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service and the French Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure all have agents in the area. But even so, this may not be enough to expedite the end of bloodshed, or increase the rate of Syrian military defections.  

However there is another option for the current melee which exists in the notable absentee who might be best suited to take on the Syrian government: Hezbollah. Yes, that Hezbollah. While they are a designated terrorist organization and consistently declare a strong malevolence towards Israel, let’s put that aside for a moment. Tucked away? Good.

It is highly improbable, but let’s have a think over why Hezbollah might engage this crisis. First, in their manifesto c. 1985 that the peoples of Lebanon should have the full freedom to choose the system of government they want. This novel approach to self-government has found little footing in the Middle East to date, with reform in even ‘moderate’ nations like Jordan and Saudi Arabia best characterized as a snail with a severe case of hitting the snooze button. Nonetheless it stands to reason that, as an organization that has a strong presence in Syria, Hezbollah might again find their roots amid the current turmoil and stand with the people. Thus their popularity would soar in the streets, securing their base for the long-term.    

Another reason why Hezbollah should engage, is the idea of having a vested interest themselves filling the role of king-maker, rather than allowing such a moment to pass by. Assad is arguably on the way out, if not now then at some point in the relatively near future. Though the Syrian regime currently funds Hezbollah and provides them with weapons, logistical support and intelligence, this is no reason to shrink from changing allegiances. Assist in overthrowing the current government, as well as installing the next government (reflective of the people’s wishes, naturally) and Hezbollah would be well positioned to maintain their role as beneficiary of the Syrian state and chief antagonist to Israel.

Think of it from the position of a major tech company: old technology (the Assad regime) might work well for you and might even provide you with much needed income, but being able to find the next new technology (new government) will ensure longevity of the company, rather than having a competitor (anyone else in Syria) discover the technology for themselves, thus leading the market. Hezbollah's popularity would soar with the new government, thereby securing their long-term support.     

Finally, a broader perspective on engagement in the Syrian conflict might offer Hezbollah increased credibility in the Arab world – if not globally – as a fighter for the people and an organization that has more to offer than picking a fight with Israel. This effectively amounts to little more than a group hug on paper, however when tempers flare and borders are infringed upon, Hezbollah will be able to cash that group hug in exchange for tempered statements from foreign governments, funding and crucial support. They might also find that their image in the West will improve, at the very least because of the affection that the idea of the revolutionary cause manages to stir within the psyche of those nations who were birthed in a similar way. Thus their international recognition and credibility would soar.

Will they or won’t they? Likely not, since it’s often impolite if not hypocritical to bite the hand that feeds. Hassan Nasrallah should take note of similar organizations that have disappeared for failing to adapt: he might count his Hezbollah amongst their numbers in the coming years. Instead the people of Syria will be stuck with an increasingly defiant President, an Arab League draft resolution urging cessation to hostilities, reform and political reconciliation towards a unity government and general elections that has absolutely no teeth, and the constant struggle that has engrossed human spirit in such situations: fight on while risking death simply for hope, or give up all of the gains and ALL of the losses for nothing.     

**It should be noted that the title has relevance beyond the absent element attributed to Hezbollah. The name of the organization can be spelled in its Arabic form as either Hizbollah or Hizbullah, or as Hezbollah, with the latter being slightly altered through the transliteration from Arabic to English.

Towards Others

I was reading an article this week in the July/August edition of Fast Company magazine, the topic of which was Matt Damon’s foundation Water.org, and the subsequent conversations that reveal much of the good that Damon does. Within the text Gary White, his partner in the foundation and expert on water delivery for developing nations, was also interviewed.  

Both men were shown as being passionate for their cause, as well as having character that at once both shames and offers hope for the reader; the former for a lack of personal action, the latter for realizing there is much that can be contributed, whatever the cause. What really struck me was the level of involved compassion these men had for the very cause they were championing. That they could engage people that others might see as statistics with a smile and a rational way forward is magnanimous, fostering a greater sense of community for those they were helping along the way. But they also sympathized with those who they were helping on a level that should act as an example for humanity.  

They aimed to help people who were racially, culturally and socially different from them with an understanding that, in the end, there was more common between them than there was alien. I think that’s lacking in society and is evident for one simplistic reason: tragedies continue with nothing done. It’s not a difficult thing to see once you remove yourself from whatever has distracted you; be it the playoffs (pick a sport), Big Brother, partying, the gravitational pull of your own life, family obligations, relationships or whatever else. There’s a whole world of people who need help. Hell, that can be reduced even further to say there’s a whole country, province, city, area within a city or family that needs help.

That segments of our society in Canada, or our neighbours in the global community, might be left out is one of the greatest tragedies of humanity. That disease, poverty, starvation and death by thirst is looked at but not touched is a shame. That rape, military attacks and shelling of civilians, murder and human-trafficking is denounced in the media with little more than a firm wag of the finger and lip-service from world leaders is embarrassing. To be sure not everything is perfect, and some of the issues just mentioned possess a great deal of complex obstacles that need to be negotiated.

In the end, what I took from the article was a fresh perspective on the human condition, the possibilities for helping others as well as the essential need to do so. The concept that resonated within me the most was a quote that was mentioned:

“Your life should be about finding the intersection of the world’s greatest need and your greatest passion.” Beautiful.   

It’s not that a lack of such perspective indicates an individual carries any less compassion for others, but I think with the distractions life can throw at us, we tend to forget and ignore the plight of others. We’ve misplaced our sense of humanity, and it seems that it’s only those who are truly engulfed in tragedy and forced humility that are able to identify anything beyond the vanilla-life. Doubt this? Find some images of any one of the millions affected by drought and famine in East Africa, the wear on their souls is visible in their face.

While I’m a big believer in the virtues of altruism, I also understand the reality that not everyone shares that ideology. But we should find a greater balance in our lives for others, whether their need is at the local, national or global level. We must.



Thank You...How Can We Help?

When it comes to honouring our military, the standard lines which seem to reverberate within our national psyche are “Lest we Forget” and “They’re fighting for our freedom.” As important and genuine as they are, both phrases fail when it comes to our current bunch of combat veterans.

“Lest we Forget” generally refers to the fallen, to those who made the supreme sacrifice in laying themselves down for their nation and, more importantly, for their comrades. It’s also a phrase that is very much married with the First and Second World Wars, though it is still a deserving pledge for those who gave their lives in Afghanistan.

As for “They’re fighting for our freedom,” frankly Canadian soldiers have never truly fought for our freedom. The wars we’ve been involved in as a nation have leaned towards the freedom of other nation’s citizens. The Boer War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War and now Afghanistan, as well as the peacekeeping deployments Canada has volunteered into have all been on foreign soil, essentially for foreign citizens. Unless the 200^th anniversary of the War of 1812 leads to altered re-enactments by some rogue American militia, then it will have been quite some time since the North of the Americas was ever truly threatened.

With the Canadian military withdrawing combat forces from Afghanistan, we need to find ourselves a new expression to honour the courage and sacrifice of those who are coming home. While “Lest we Forget” is a sincere token for the fallen, it does little for the living because we DO forget, as well as ignore. The other line isn’t applicable, so let’s scrub that in general please. What we need as a nation is a way to bring these men and women back into the flock, a means of telling them we’re proud, offering heart-felt thanks for bearing the burden of fighting, killing and losing friends, and then reaching out a hand for each and every combat solider and military staff.





Having said that, “thank you...how can we help?” is a great start for our country to take. In the study On Killing, it is stated that “Societies have always recognized that war changes men, that they are not the same after they return. That is why primitive societies often require soldiers to perform purification rites before allowing them to rejoin their communities.” It is further stated that such rituals allow soldiers to rid themselves of the stress and guilt associated with combat (especially related to the act of killing), and that “...above all, his community of sane and normal men welcomed him back.”

This is why thanking our soldiers and offering our support as a nation, as communities, and as individuals is so essential. We need to reassure them that what they did WAS right, regardless of our moral stances on war, killing, the counterinsurgency programs, Afghan politics, the Taliban or anything else. I would like to see parades for our veterans of Afghanistan, nationally as well as at the local level. It’s all well and good that we honour the fallen with the Highway of Heroes, but what of the living who must re-enter a society that knows little of what they were exposed to, or what they struggle with mentally, emotionally and physically. If we fail to honour our soldiers, to reach out a hand of support and help to our warriors who have guarded Canada’s values, then we will have shamed ourselves; the brave who have stood on guard for thee deserve a nation willing to do the same for them.  

The Undividual

There are too few people that I’ve come into contact with throughout my life who best characterize what might be called a selfless individual. Each person, while seeking their path in life and negotiating their way through, across and around the nifty little gems of unexpectedness that happen along, often act out of self-gain. While different models in Game Theory might be used to explain seeking an advantageous outcome, surely it’s neither a crime nor a sin to try and benefit from the labours of life.

Yet we have crossed a point in society where the individual has become greater than the whole. Though this is a concept that needs to be reaffirmed and protected in relation to human rights, where it is essential that each person is treated with dignity and respect through a humanist approach.

What society needs is an undividual, who is willing to sacrifice, give of themselves to others, and always seek stability through cooperation. The undividual would hold the door open for a stranger, or have the decency to say “thank you” when one does so for them; he would let another car ahead of him with ease, and she would show her appreciation for the deed with a kind wave. All of the acts are characterized as being folksy, which is a fantastic approach to people, but it goes beyond a simple term when becomes a constant habit.  

The undividual looks beyond the self, recognizing the value and importance of the whole in every action. Marcus Aurelius, the great Roman emperor and giant of philosophy, once stated that “Every individual dispensation is one of the causes of the prosperity, success, and even survival of That which administers the universe. To break off any particle, no matter how small, from the continuous concatenation – whether of causes or of any other elements – is to injure the whole.” Phew, a tad on the wordy side, but what he was trying to argue is that each individual contributes to the whole; in his view, injuring an individual takes away from the whole. Though his specific reference of the importance of one towards the whole derives from his philosophical views on the gripping warfare he was engaged in throughout his reign, it also applies to the more peaceable forms of humanity. The idea of “injuring the whole” also exists in actions that degrade, insult, offend, slight or take from others.   

So the individual has a great deal of responsibility towards the whole as an undividual. Yet seldom do we see this in society, as the individual rarely recognizes himself in others, or herself in relation to the whole of society. Understanding that our actions influence someone’s mood, how they view strangers, and even relates to economic output and labour markets, marks a true awareness to the significance of one towards the whole. Ultimately we are all connected in humanity, and the ignorance which allows for the discarding of that common bond has allowed some of history’s greatest sorrows to manifest themselves repeatedly.

Think of others the next time you’re out-and-about, especially when you’re having a rough day. Pick-up the cost for the person behind you in the Tim Horton’s drive-thru, offer to help someone with their groceries, think of your neighbour’s lawn that needs cutting when you know they’re away for a few days, or of the little shop down the street rather than the big store without a face. The simplest deed of goodwill and care for a stranger could make someone’s day, giving you reason to smile, and ensuring that our community and society moves closer to engaging each other as equals and undividuals.

On bin Laden

First let me apologize for not having covered the Canadian Federal Election as much as I indicated I might. The reason for this was very simple, in that I was working on a campaign at the time and did not want my personal views to in any way become biased towards one party/candidate. So, now more Mark’s Spark...

Osama bin Laden was killed in the early hours of a Pakistani morning on May 2, with US Navy SEALS assaulting the compound in which he had lived for a number of years. There has in recent days been much controversy over the nature of the mission, given that there are now reports suggesting he – as well as several others within the walled mansion – was unarmed when shot.

Say what you will about bin Laden or his tactics that included the targeting of civilians, and the nature of his resentment for the West, his assassination should have instead been his capture. While Western nations as well as some Islamic ones cheered the death of the scourge who had caused havoc, destruction and an immense loss of life, there is a profound loss of principle in the bloodlust for bin Laden.

With reports stating that Osama was unarmed – and as accounts have it the last one alive in the compound – as commandos confronted him on the third floor, surely there were options to be had. But this military operation was as much an emotional release for the United States as it was an expression of justice.

That bin Laden was killed by US Navy SEALS within the confines of a small room gives us much indication of the sentiment the Obama Administration – and indeed the United States itself – wanted to extend. The two options on the table for Obama were that of an air-strike from a Predator drone, or a direct assault on the compound. While both options give you the same result (unless the latter part of “kill or capture” ever really applied), one was incredibly more personal, not to mention popular in the American public and psyche. Surely most Americans have pictured in their own minds what it would have felt like to be there, watching this man who had sown terror and fear, come to a lifeless mass right before their eyes.

The US needed this release, and Obama needed to demonstrate that he had the ruthless edge necessary to provide it in the face of staunch criticism over his handling of Afghanistan and the war on terror. In both cases, the public and the president are breathing easier having vindicated themselves of burdens they have carried for too long. But what of principles?

The United States should have done their utmost to capture rather than kill in my opinion, simply because doing so would send a clear message: that stopping isn’t an option, and neither is compromising on principles. True it can be said that at some point every society finds itself negotiating with its moral constitution, but that should not be at the instigation of thugs, rebels, freedom fighters or terrorists; it is those who would provoke an erosion of the moral compass that should be shown the true valour of it. Maintaining such a national and societal position is difficult for any country, but for a nation of people so willing to engage in violence towards themselves and others, one could hardly expect any other outcome for Mr bin Laden.

Poetic Politics

By now you should know,

We’re in the midst of an election,

But if somehow you don’t,

Use some sense of detection.

On city street corners,

Signs are starting to blossom,

You might think it an eye-sore,

But I think it’s pretty awesome.

Then there’s the negativity,

In the way of the attack ad,

Finger pointing and slandering,

It is both childish and sad.

So please noble politician,

Nod if you’re listening,

Run an issue-based campaign,

And your image will be glistening.

Between Mr.’s Harper

Ignatieff and yes even Layton,

A Prime Minister will be crowned,

It’s just a matter of waitin’.

Stay tuned for more election coverage; every 2 or 3 days there should be a new post. And let me know what you think of the “Poetic Politics” segment, it might make a regular appearance. Also, check out what CBC’s Rex Murphy had to say about campaigns, politicians and what standards they should hold in elections, really great piece from a thoughtful man. Enjoy!  

Goodwill Hunting?

Earlier this week, I awoke to my customary tradition of a bowl of oatmeal, a pint of water, and the daily paper spread over the kitchen table for a nice little read. It’s a ritual that I’ve faithfully followed for years, starting the day with healthy dose of nutrition and information. It was a little different on Wednesday though, as the headline of the Waterloo Region Record read “Johnston heading to Mideast.” While reading the article, I found myself increasingly frustrated with the ignorance that seems to be a major qualification for public office.

It was announced on Tuesday that Governor General David Johnston will be sent at the behest of PM Harper to the Middle East for the purpose of a “goodwill mission,” stopping in Kuwait and Qatar. The purpose of the mission is to strengthen relationships, with the PMO stressing it will “reiterate Canada’s long-standing commitment to protecting peace and security in the region.” Hardly intelligent dialogue considering that the nations we are visiting will be using the Canada trip as an endorsement of their brand of governance and policy.   

Both Kuwait and Qatar in recent days have cracked-down on demonstrations, refusing public assembly. No political parties exist in either country, as they are both emirates (not the airline or the stadium you Arsenal fans, but the type of monarchy), who have widespread power controlled by a very small few. In the wake of recent developments across the Middle East that has witnessed a genuine desire for change, Canada would appear to be throwing their hat in with the status quo.

In a region where we have snubbed common decency and human rights concerns, as well as having supported Israel with a carte blanche over their actions in Palestine and elsewhere, Canada continues to ignore logic. The momentum of history will not yield to ideas that are past their time, and this is especially true of people who desire a change of governance. So we must ask ourselves, are we strategizing for Canada’s future interests, or our current ones? Surely it is the latter, while the long-term approach to the region is neglected. And there is no shame is using the word strategizing, since we need to approach global events with Canada’s best interests in mind. However our strategy and policy should be as intimate as possible with our values and ideals, not in the sense that we project a superiority on others, but that we project an alternative example or vision.

In reality, the people of the Middle East would likely look with far more favour and optimism on a nation that presented itself with such vision. A Western nation that was bold, decisive and emphatic about their support for democratic, economic and educational change, rather than one that was timid, failed to grasp the issues at hand or the genuine will of the people and, had little in the way of forward thinking.

This is the exact moment where Canada needs to demonstrate our commitment to ideals in actions, not words upon which little is done. I feel that at the end of the trip a scruffy and sentimental Robin Williams should be waiting for Gov-Gen. Johnston at the airport. Amidst a sea of people and without notice of them, he would embrace the GG with his burly arms wrapped in the scratchy wool of his windowpane-patterned  cardigan, holding him close in an almost paternal embrace and say “it’s not your fault David, it’s not your fault" (please picture that with a smile as you watch the video, and yes Good Will Hunting is high on my favourites list).

Think of it in this way: the Middle East movement is for Canada like going to see the movies; we’ve already missed the previews, we’re definitely not going to get the best seat, but do we want to miss the first bit of the movie – or worse miss it entirely? I should think it time to step up to the  counter get out ticket and walk in with real purpose. Alas, I feel as though we’re about to miss the movie friends, save your money and don’t bother to buy the popcorn.  

Feel like a change of pace from the heavy topics? Try some easy lifting with www.thehealthyteacher.com .

Arab Democracy

The same phenomenon that first struck-down the dictatorship of Tunisia is poised to engulf the Arab world in the same way that 1798 gave rise to a shake-up of the status quo for European monarchs. It seems fitting that, in a place where the French once brought their empire while leaving their ideals at home, the roots of a sprouted revolution have taken hold. But here we are as Arab democracy is finally calling after years of wishful flirtation that she might. She looks lovely wrapped in the jasmine of Tunisia, holding you against her bosom and whispering throatily into your ear that she will make you feel like no monarch or dictator ever could: I’m in love already.  

Several other nations trying to make a push for democratic change in recent weeks have also resorted to protests. Four people in Morocco resorted to self-immolation (setting themselves on fire), while tens of thousands have rallied in Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan and Lebanon. The general sentiment of all protests has been one of frustration with regards to poverty and unemployment, along with a call for governments representative of the people and sympathetic to their interests. Fair due to those points, especially considering that the demographics of the mentioned countries tilt towards youth quite heavily (read: change). Make no mistake, democracy born from these events would be different from that of Iraq: the former would be organic, while the latter was synthetic and a make-shift imposed product.     

It is a mixed blessing that these demonstrations are without a face. No individual or organization is behind them. At best, the Muslim Brotherhood – once derided as a terrorist organization for its assassination of Egyptian President in 1948 as well as its attempted coup and other assassination plots   - has been relatively rooted in their approach to moderate governance. Think of them as Hamas and Hezbollah without the violence; all provide crucial social services like education, health care and sanitation. The Brotherhood has done well to field moderate candidates in recent elections, though they remain technically illegal and struggle to have their names placed on ballots. Yet the Muslim Brotherhood is not yet known to be orchestrating the events in Egypt, where the ruling National Democratic Party recently won 95% of the vote in first-round voting. Though they are riding the chariot that is the protests, they’ve yet to take the reins.

So what is the end goal of these movements? Hard to say really. I’m sure their ideal is to further democracy, the likes of which they can readily see on the internet as well as television thanks in large part to al-Jazeera (the Arab equivalent of CNN). But maybe they would settle for small concessions now with the hope of moving the ball down the field in due time (think Magna Carta). The events in Tunisia will have been a welcome inspiration in homes across the region, but as is the case with any opportunity, there are always obstacles to negotiate. And while there is no clear objective other than chants for change and democracy, what remains interesting is how little ideology has penetrated these events.     

Now the danger of a faceless protest is that it could allow for a growing Islamist movement to fill the void. This surely would have consequences, the more pressing of which is that it would ruin any sympathy amongst the Arab elite and moderates, not to mention Western governments who are already fearful of rising fundamentalism. One of the main reasons US administrations have for decades supported Mubarak in Egypt is due to his tough love towards extremists and support for the US in terror policing.

Sure Tunisia was able to avoid this issue, with their army saying they would support the revolution and ensure its longevity; but there isn't a deeply rooted fundamentalist movement present, and really who wants to invite the possibility of another military coup? As you move further across the region you see this is more of an issue. The most pointed case is Yemen, a failed state with massive poverty, unemployment and a volatile government who needs constant hand-holding and military aid from the US; not to mention the growing presence of insurgent elements who are flocking to Yemen like kids to Disney Land (Somalia being Disney World).   

As domestic visionaries come there is one that could have some real impact on the events in Egypt and the broader Middle East. Mohamed ElBaradei, the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner, former head of the IAEA and native of Cairo, has called for progress amidst the chaos. He has recently said “I continue to call on the regime to understand that they better listen and listen quickly, not use violence and understand that change has to come. There's no other option." It is a good starting point from a man with international credibility and sympathy for democratic values. He would be my bet for true leadership in the transition to, and possible governance of a democracy.  

To help this along the international community should act as midwives, providing strong international pressure and support for strong domestic visionaries. When I say that, I don’t mean go the way of the French and British and make a hash of the entire Middle East like they did at Versailles. Nor do I think the UN should impose a mandate on the region, much like they did by creating Israel and nurturing the chaos that exists there today (though supporting a mandate to guarantee land and statehood to Palestine I would support). What should be done is a delegation of respected world leaders and activists – with no agenda other than peace and democracy – should be sitting on the sidelines. When necessary, they should encourage, call for restraint, promote values and above all do so with vision rather than political motives.  

Sadly there seems to be a lack of Arabists (those who are sympathetic to the Arab peoples) in the West, as well as the East I would think, with a major profile. If the international community alienates democratic movements any longer, blowback that goes beyond that which occurred following the previous 90 years of policy in the Middle East will threaten many. Ideally, we resurrect T.E. Lawrence and put him in the mix as a true leader and statesman in the Middle East. He championed the Arab cause, disagreed with many imperialist views of his own government, and fought alongside those whom he wanted to help. Lawrence commanded respect from Europe and the Middle East and, more importantly, had earned the trust of the Arab people through his sacrifice and his vision. If ElBaradei can manage to do the same, regardless of what the actions and sentiments are of Western or Eastern governments, the Arab world has a real chance this time at attaining something they have longed for.  

Hopefully those with a vested interest in change have the drive and wisdom to match the heights this movement must strive for in order to encourage meaningful progress. It’s only a matter of time before change does sweep the Middle East in the same way it did in Europe following the French Revolution. The only questions remaining is which way will the scimitar fall? And is a true Arab democracy finally on its way? Let's just hope we don't find ourselves staring down a neo-Napoleon along the Suez.  

Roots of Political Extremism

On January 4^th Pakistan was thrown into a further sense of unravelling as a Salman Taseer, a prominent liberal politician and governor of Punjab, was assassinated. He was shot and killed by his own bodyguard for his defence of an illiterate farmer who was sentenced to death for blasphemy against the prophet. Interesting how a country founded on the principles of freedom of religion and thought (as Pakistan actually was) can so easily have become ideologically juvenile, such are the roots of political extremism.  

Days later, on the 8^th of January, US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was the target of a similar attack in an attempted assassination. She was shot – at point blank range with a handgun – in the head. Amazingly under any circumstances, she is still alive following the massive brain trauma (the bullet travelled the length of the left side of her brain), and is breathing own her own as well as responding to various physical commands. The story takes a less miraculous twist when one considers that six people were killed in the incident, including a 9 year-old girl, while 14 others were wounded from the gunfire. 





These politicians were attacked for one reason: their views conflicted with those of their attackers. As the US moves towards increased political polarization and radicalism – which has been the case with politically volatile debates regarding gun laws and the second amendment, as well as immigration, health care and the role of government itself – it will increasingly experience the ideological schisms and destabilizing influences present in  Pakistan. Surely it won’t you say?

Well consider this: federal and state agencies in the US currently monitor some 300+ well-armed militias who train on scenarios to overthrow the government (a constitutional and patriotic obligation they would say), gun control is practically non-existent while there is a proliferation of conventional weapons, and there is the continued inertia (see: ignorance) from large groups of people who refuse to enter the fold of moderate debate and perspective. Similarly in Pakistan there are a variety of well armed groups who aim to overthrow the government (those of Pakistan, Afghanistan and to a degree India), gun control isn’t very controlling and there exists a proliferation of conventional weapons – especially through illegal weapons manufacturing – and they’re having a bit of a hard time bringing large groups of people from various territories into a more moderate dialogue.

So the US increasingly resembles the political realities of developing nations with its fractured discourse. What’s perhaps most troubling since the Tuscon shooting is the amount of rhetoric that has continued to agitate politics rather than tear down the walls of partisanship and bigotry. Right-wing media outlets and commentators have been nothing but critical of Sheriff Dupnik for his comments chastising the practice of harmful and ignorant commentary in politics when he made statements such as, “the anger, the hatred the...bigotry that goes on in this country is outrageous.” People in the US are so hypersensitive about anything political that they take everything to the extreme, and when moderate thinking on the state of political discourse comes along it too is targeted with the same hyperbole that is at the very root of the issue.   

The likes of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh would have you believe that the Sheriff was out of line for labelling such commentary as irresponsible, calling him immature and trying to argue that he is inciting a blood libel. Mr. Limbaugh in his cozy, ego-loving studio argued that “...what this is all about is shutting down any and all political opposition and eventually criminalizing it.” He continued by saying “the Sheriff of Pima County has made a fool of himself I don’t know if he knows it or not.” Charming as he might be, Rush is plain wrong. That he made an outrageous comment about the government eventually criminalizing political opposition is daft enough, the more troubling thought will occur when you consider his audience is in the ballpark of 15-25 million listeners.    

Politics is seldom pretty, more often resembling a nosedive from the ugly tree than any darling you might want to take home, no matter how polished it may seem. But without fair and honest public debate or opinion, as well as moderate and informed thinking, it will continue to breed hatred, discontent and unhinge trust in nations like Pakistan and the US. Tens of thousands took to the street to praise the Pakistani assassin and as a show supporting the death penalty for blasphemy, while in the States there is further political posturing and opportunism by those who would make a meal of a man looking for cooler heads and calm waters. These obstacles are the real roots of political extremism and it’s at such moments when there is a real need for détente, with the hope that individuals and groups might work towards common principles rather than dividing words. 

New Year's Resolution

I want you to really have a think about this article, because it’s something that I’m very sentimental about. Picture in your mind a man, or woman, lying on a sidewalk somewhere, wrapped in a sleeping bag that’s been delicately rolled out on some well-worn cardboard. They look tired, as though life itself has worn and weathered them down in such a way that they now fit your image of homelessness. 

Notice for a moment how the dirt and sweat and grime has managed to settle in the creases of their skin, so that their face looks almost like a sketched drawing. You see their ears, and notice that they’re maybe a little too small or too big for the size of their head, and it reminds you of someone that you know from work in that sense. As you continue to look at them, you see their entire worldly possessions within arm’s reach. Maybe a bag or two packed with little niceties like a change of clothes, some deodorant – you can’t guess beyond that because all that you’re thinking of is that you can’t imagine having so little.

Now at some point (if you haven’t already) you’re going to go one of three ways from looking at this person: apathy and simply not caring to even bother yourself with it; labelling this person a bum and producing judgements that manage to blame them for their current station in life; or feeling a sense of sadness or pity for the image it conjures up. Whatever the reality is –and please don’t let it be options one or two – we as a society should have higher expectations for what is and is not tolerable.

Do you remember when you were a kid thinking about what and who you wanted to be when you were older? Because I’m fairly certain that no child goes through life wanting to be homeless when they’re older, or living in a state of poverty, or suffering from addictions or diseases that cause them to be judged as social pariahs that are worthless or merely looking for a handout. No five year-old would want that, but the reality is very much the opposite for too many as life should have it. You can say what you want about the subject, but if you can justify the idea of a child living on the street or struggling through poverty, then you’ve lost yourself my friend. 

Frankly, we as a society have lost ourselves. While I admit to being an idealist I make no apologies for it, which is why I ask how it is that a nation like Canada, a member of the elite club of industrial and economic powerhouses in the G7, allow its own citizens to live on streets with a passive acceptance for it as simply being the way it is? I can’t for the life of me understand that. I can’t understand how there isn’t enough food for many in our country, or how the poverty line is so low and we seem to be more concerned with hoarding wealth than making sure those in the hardest and most challenging positions have the basics. And when I say basic standards, I don’t mean the basic standards for living because that’s rubbish and an easy cop-out and certainly if many of us were in such a position we would be shouting for more. Instead I mean the basic standards that WE would accept for our own lives; certainly if many of us were in such a position of poverty and degradation as living on the street our hope and expectation for help might be at least as loud.

We need to do better folks. We need a stronger position when it comes to issues like homelessness and poverty, hunger and education (though there are more issues than that...). Five year-olds don’t dream of living on the street, and teenagers or adults shouldn’t have to go through life with that as their reality. We need to rediscover our own humanity, because we’ve lost it and people are suffering because of it. It’s often said of teams that they’re only as good as their weakest member; if that’s the measure of our society and country, then surely on paper we’re not a very good team. We need to resolve how we can overcome this to be the great team we’re capable of, regardless of what justification might be necessary to get to that point.  

These are tough issues that we need to take on, with obstacles (some imagined) and different views towards what are the appropriate policies needed to combat them. But it needs to be done and the measure of our effort should not be a minimum standard, rather it must be our maximum humanity. If we can’t get to that point on policy then we don’t deserve to call ourselves a great society, nor a decent country. Hopefully we can fix this (and other blatant issues) and allow for a strong and eternally compassionate Canada to emerge, so that we care for others as though they were five years-old, with nothing more than thoughts of Mickey Mouse in their minds and care for others in their hearts.

Russian Politics: Would you like one sentence or two?

Crime as a deterrent for justice: it seems an interesting if not farcical statement, especially given our affection for prosecuting those who dabble in criminal activity. Were you to rob a bank today and be caught, chances are you would face some measure of justice in the courts. The very idea that you could rob a bank in plain sight of police, the crown attorney and a judge as a means of furthering your own interests/power while making obsolete and impotent your opposition is the stuff that Machiavellian rappers and wannabe gang-bangers dream of. Still even the dullest and daftest of those kinds of dreamers would eventually realize that you simply can’t walk away from justice, unless of course you’re talking about Russian politics.

A few days ago, the Russian courts handed down a guilty verdict for the men who were already serving prison sentences for the related crime. Confusing? Let me break it down then: In 2005 oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his business partner Platon Lebedev, were found guilty of fraud and tax evasion. No real surprise that fraud and tax evasion occurred (or still does) within the upper echelons of Russian society, the real interesting point is the timing of the previous trial. Khodorkovsky was a political opponent to Putin and directly financed and supported opposition to his government. It sounds unfathomable, but for an individual – and one would suspect an upper class/government/society – with a “Motherland complex” it is brushed off as defending the interests of Russia against those who would weaken it.

Sure, in all likelihood the two men in question likely did commit some measure of white-collar crime, but here they are effectively being found guilty in a second trial simply because their first sentence was due to expire. Oh and interestingly enough, they’re accused by the prosecution of stealing what adds up to ALL of the oil produced by their company Yukos. They have had many in government and the private sector state in their defence that there is no way they could have stolen some $27-30 billion worth of oil, and even logic seems to be a sound member of their defence team in this matter.

Enter the wild wild West, who have accused the Russian government and judiciary of once again purging the good natured will of democracy for the sake of power and tyrannical rule. It’s not the first time that dissidents have been silenced mind you as those who oppose Russia, or specific individuals to be sure (including those who pen words against their elite), tend to find themselves in a paranoid exile or as an assassination headline. Charming. But nonetheless Secretary of State Clinton said the ruling would hurt Russia’s reputation (which was apparently more Winnie the Pooh than Russian Grizzly), and the German foreign minister said it was a step back from democracy, while others said it was a selective application of justice.     

From a political perspective, the very fact that Russia is acknowledging Western concern over the trial by saying the West is “meddling” lends a lot more credibility to the idea of it being a rigged verdict rather than saying something like “the Russian legal system is separate State actor that has no direction from any special interests or government, and only deals with the merits and arguments surrounding each individual case.” Really, does that sound so difficult? Well to a degree it is, since the implication surrounding the idea of an individual being charged a second time for a crime for which his current sentence is due to expire seems incredibly crooked. But attacking the credibility of your opponent is no way to make friends, while at the same time it exposes you to the same kind of critique.

With this in mind countries like Canada, the United States and Great Britain should be ever mindful of their own shortcomings – both domestic and global – and work towards eliminating or at the very least minimize them before they take pot-shots at other nation’s behaviours. For Canada this can range anywhere from our continued ignorance of aboriginal issues, to the case of Omar Khadr, to our policy of blanket support for Israel. The United States is a bit of an easy target with the war in Iraq, its hot and cold stances towards human rights centered on what one presumes to be either a magic 8 ball or their own interests, or their constant finger pointing towards other governments, as well as their mistress in the form of Israel, not to mention their incredibly selective application of the principles of democracy as they continue to support oppressive governments who stunt democratic institutions. Britain has an issue similar to the latter of the US, as well as their role in invading Iraq, bowing to pressures from Libya concerning the release of the Lockerbie bomber, increased xenophobia around their Muslim communities and so forth.

I’m not trying to suggest that Russia is an angel, nor am I going to label them a pariah in the global community. Their government actively contributes to areas of genuine good and cooperation at times – for what intention is almost irrelevant – but should embrace change and transparency in an attempt to soothe the discontent both at home and abroad. Oppression is a marvellous tactic for the unimaginative and insecure, maybe that’s all this whole situation really comes down to. Think of it as high school in that it’s the guys who act with the most bravado and ignorance that are really the most insecure; and yet the girls somehow fall for them and end up unhappy in later life. This time the guy is represented by Russian politics, and the girl is somehow represented by the Russian people. Let’s just hope that the Motherland doesn’t get too upset when her daughter comes home crying and wondering how it could have gone so wrong. While he continues to exert authority and influence over Russian domestic and foreign policies, it is important to realize that until there is a stronger image of justice and mature behaviour from other nations, such criticism of any individual or government will be met with the same wave of the hand. Putin may go the way of the Czar - and what a shame it would be to miss out on Russia’s James Dean - but we too must leave what is our worst in pursuit of higher virtues.    

   

Cote d'Hope




 

What a difference a decade makes in Cote d’Ivore. Didier Drogba has risen from anonymity (unless of course you’re scratching your head) to become an icon for the Ivorian people, economic vitality has returned in the way of foreign investment and trade, and democracy is well on its way. “But Mark,” you say, “aren’t we witnessing something along the lines of civil chaos with the current political turmoil?” Great question hypothetical you; remarkable really given the fact that you’re not even signed up as a follower of this blog (ahem, that means you).

Sure, there are some crucial and grave issues right now given that Laurent Gbagbo (pictured left) has refused to concede the November 28th election to Alassane Ouattara (pictured right), instead setting up his own administrative cabinet. These range from the farcical (Gbagbo tried to order the UN peacekeeping force out of his country, oh him...) to the distressing (hundreds are reported to have been abducted in the night, while the perpetrators were protected by the security services) and the downright deadly (dozens have been killed, with more violence threatened). And so chaos has ensued. This election, which was supposed to have healed wounds endured from the 2002-03 civil war, is instead leaning Ivory Coast towards a national crisis between the ruling and the should-be-ruling.

The recent political history of Gbagbo is incredibly interesting, mirroring a hurricane of political turmoil. Following a failed coup in 1999, in which the leader of the movement fled, Gbagbo ran in a 2000 election. After winning the vote Robert Guei was later deposed following an uprising, which led to Laurent Gbagbo being instated as the President of Cote d’Ivore. Phew. In that decade, there was a considerable amount of xenophobia and racism, violence, civil war and political instability due in part to Gbagbo himself. Now that he is refusing to concede the election, there is much anticipation of renewed polarization of the country along the lines of North (predominately Muslim/former rebel territory) and South (predominately Christian). After all, it was only in 2007 that a power-sharing agreement came into place with a settlement that allowed for a former rebel to act as prime minister and Gbagbo to continue as president, while the recent elections were aimed at moving the process of reconciliation along.

The UN Security Council as well as Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the European Union, African Union and a whole host of other countries have all moved to recognize the winner of the election, Alassane Ouattara, and encourage Gbagbo to step down and allow for a peaceful transition of power. And for the African Union to say “it’s time to go,” then surely the party must be over because they don’t send anyone packing, not even Robert Mugabe and his billion percent inflation in Zimbabwae. What we’re witnessing could well be a “Mugabe” as Gbagbo attempts to assert himself in the hope that a mechanism for his continued presence in power, even power-sharing, can be found to alleviate the crisis. Cheeky if that’s the case.

Back to your initial question regarding the co-existence of democracy and chaos and, from what I can see, there are many reasons to find hope in these prickly events. On the whole, the greater issue remains the state of democracy in Cote d’Ivore and its sustenance regardless of the cost. Despite the chaos, kidnappings, threats of violence from Gbagbo’s youth militia and retribution from the Ouattara-backing rebels, democracy is working. The voices of the people are being heard and fought for by the global community and, regardless of the policies of individual countries and organizations, it is a significant declaration. That the election was won by a Muslim from the North is also extremely significant, and gives way to the kind of hope and national unity that was nurtured in Cote d’Ivore prior to the 1999 coup. Only that type of feel-good sentiment can foster the necessary trust to move democracy forward, disarm and disband all rebel /militia groups, and bring the state towards a greater role in African peace making.

Hopefully the standoff in the not so wild west of Africa can come to a peaceful conclusion, sans Gbagbo in my opinion. Anyone who betrays the sentiment of the people, as well as those fragile elements of democracy and national interest, needs to go. Clearly that was the message in the election, and only some political posturing is preventing its activation.

A quick side note about the rebels and militias: I swear they must shop at a military wholesaler who equips them in a style that can only be called “African chique”: guns that are either way too big for the person carrying them or far too small, bullet belts that always find the most intricate ways of being used as clothing, standard camouflage pants and then shirts that range from camo green to sleeveless plain t-shirts or old soccer jerseys, not to mention the diversity in hats, jewellery, and even the footwear (flip flops optional). Are rebel movements so unprofessional that they can’t even take pride in their appearance or uniformity? Say what you like about the Marxist fighters of old, at least they had it together.

Coming up on Africa's Next Top Rebel: The role of accessories.



 

Sarah Palin's Whacky World

When I think of the word ‘empire’ and all that is associated with it, a lot of different images and concepts come to mind. Being a bit of a romanticist, they generally have to do with things like a strong military, economic power, scientific progress and development, assertive and mature foreign policy. Perhaps the most essential image for empire though, is the leader. When you picture Rome a young Caesar, perhaps even a Marcus Aurelius, comes to mind. Britain would likely have you imagine Queens Victoria and Elizabeth and so on. There is always a certain sense of the right strengths to undertake the task of ruling such vast empires from people of strong character.

Now, the United States has experienced a sort of empire for multiple decades now, being one of two empires that remained since World War II and, until China’s recent rise in power and influence, the sole ‘superpower’ in existence following the collapse of the USSR. Pretend for a moment they are leaderless, without Obama at the helm, and have a bit of an imagine...done? Good. Now whoever you pictured, as the head of state for the world’s main power, replace with Sarah Palin. You just felt your stomach turn didn’t you? And I’ll bet you didn’t have any under-cooked Heff meat.

Sarah Palin, America’s darling of the moment, is really stirring the pot of politics in the US. She is attacking Democrats as well as senior Republican leadership in her bid to galvanize an incredibly passionate grass-roots movement, as well as establish herself as...erm...something.

You see, the issue is that she doesn’t really appear to have a strong enough grasp of the qualities for leading the US, like knowing for instance that it is South Korea, NOT North Korea, who are their allies. But at the same time, she has a gift for the gab and has shown that she genuinely knows how to connect with middle class America; at least those that like to shoot and say folksy things anyways.

The problem is the system in the States. People are either fiery about politics and stick to their base, or are independents and getting tired with the polarization of their political system. So when someone who has genuine appeal comes along and appears to be a straight-shooter – who also drops the gloves with both parties – then they have a great possibility of doing very well. The thing with Mrs. Palin is that what she says doesn’t have to be accurate or responsible, as long as she is passionate and throws in a little twang with her voice, she’s good to go.

That’s called populism and it tends to work in democracies, even in Canada, which is a bit of a shame really. The same reality that allows for kids to lose student council elections because of one spectacle or token promise is that same that sees the capable lose to those who pander to the masses. Ideally, we would be seeking statesmen and women for office, not glorified street performers with the same capacity for grasping political realities as the girls on The Hills. As a matter of fact, I would even like to have a go at Mrs. Palin and think I would be able to field questions with intelligent responses better suited for office than she could – unless of course she decided to know the difference between rhetoric and reality.

Just a thought here, but maybe we should ask more of our elected officials than a resume filled with gun ranges, foreign policy gaffs, knee-jerk right-wing commentary and a bit of folksy sass. George W won campaigns on the basis that he was the guy you’d rather have a beer with. Shouldn’t we instead – and forgive my idealism – ask more of those entrusted with the policy of our nations? I mean, I would think that someone with strong credentials, goals and objectives aimed at the greater good is more important than the guy you’d rather have a beer with. Because if quality time over a beer is all that it comes down to, then a few of me mates are looking strong contenders for Prime Minister’s Office in the next election.