Media, Technology and Society

Sending Warships to the North: Harper has his Benefits...

Let me say that while I didn't vote conservative in this past election, it wasn't for lack of an appealing foreign policy and military plank in that parties platform. Canada has let its military languish, and seen a corresponding drop in foreign policy clout ever since Chretien took power in the early 1990s (granted, the country had more urgent spending priorities and a sizeable deficit to contend with during the Mulroney-Chretien succession). While I'm not one to advocate a sudden rush to spend trillions on "defence" in an effort to emulate our belligerent neighbours to the south, Harpers position that a nation either "asserts sovereignty or loses it" has been proven correct in view of North American history. A strong military is not just a conservative ideal, but a pragmatic one as well.

Heck, America asserted "sovereignty" over Canada three times before finally conceding that its God-given manifest destiny could do without a couple million extra hectares. Indeed, both Canada and the US owe their existence (my mind always jumps to "New Mexico" and Hawai'i as especially obvious examples...?) to the military-technological capacity to supplant other (un-recognized, of course) nations' sovereignty. But I digress...that's all boring, painfully normalized history, of course, bearing no relation to the present day.

In any case, the latest self serving and paternalistic loudmouth ambassador to get relegated sent to Canada has astutely proferred the following analysis of Canada's interests in the North: "There's no reason to create a problem that doesn't exist. We don't recognize Canada's claim to those waters...most other countries don't recognize Canada's claim".

You see, there's no reason to create a problem that doesn't exist! Asserting sovereignty is a "problem" that wouldn't exist if we would just not assert it! Thanks for comin' up ambassador, its been great.

Harper's response, however, has been ideal. Unlike Martin, Harper recognizes the value of responding to the Americans calmly, firmly, and with an underlying threat of military force: "The United States defends its sovereignty and the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty. It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."

Thank you, Mr. Harper.

It also doesn't hurt that Harpers plan to defend the North includes the construction and deployment of three heavily armed icebreaking ships, a $2 billion dollar deepwater port in Iqaluit and a network of underwater "listening posts" (see cbc news).

Obviously, there might be little Canada could do to actually prevent foreign nations from simply sending a destroyer or two to escort any of their ships through Canadian waters. However, it isn't cheap to have the navy involved in domestic shipping. The entire premise of asserting sovereignty in the North is not to provoke a military confrontation (we're past that aren't we?) but rather to send a strong signal to other countries: You're not welcome. Thanks eh?

As global warming increases and the frozen north gives way to a series of very cold rocky islands with lots of water around them, the temptation for not just the US, but many other nations to help themselves to these "international" waters and maybe a few islands or five, will increase. Harper's plan is not the final solution to what will be an ongoing and expensive national effort, but its a powerful stride in the right direction.

Stupid Ekos Poll: Rogue or What?

So far the gist of the Canadian Electoral campaign so far is pretty well known:

The Conservatives have run by all accounts a very good campaign. The party has unveiled scores of new policy announcement every day, and has suffered little to no incidences of Conservative MPs spewing sexist or racist slurs. On occasion, the party leader, Stephen Harper, has failed to wear a tie (apparently, this is the equivalent of having him smile or otherwise not appearing to be a robot). Because the party has made the debate about issues, Harpers inhuman demeanour and alleged "hidden" socially conservative agenda has been yester-campaign's news. In other words, voters are seeing Stephen Harper as more of a regular politician with frequently-intriguing policy proposals, as opposed to the party leader that one could never vote for in good conscience.   

Meanwhile, the Martin Liberal campaign has suffered a slow attrition in public opinion, owing primarily to a balance of events such as the following:

-An RCMP investigation into Finance Minister Ralph Goodale office and an alleged leak of an income trust taxation decision prior to the official decision being made (resulting in an insider-trading esque spate of market purchasing of income trusts).

-A Liberal campaign official labelling the Conservative childcare plan involving lump sum cash dispursals to parents as "money for beer and popcorn." Whether true or not, the optics of this statement play too easily into Conservative depictions of the essential Liberal as one who preempts individual choice in favour of elite and paternalistic decisions "in the best interest of constituents." Sure enough, Harper played up parental responsibility and his lump-sum plan by describing parents as by-default experts in childcare spending. 

-A lacklustre round of French and English debates in which Martin failed to capture the imagination of voters (personally, I think the customer-service model of politician promises is at issue here - something all the leaders are guilty of. A politician with the Kennedy-esque guts to say that voters need to "ask not what my country can do for me, but what I can do for my country" is very much needed).

-A spate of highly publicized gun crimes over the holidays which have been seen to favour (to what extent is unknown) the Conservative (hardline aka mandatory minimum sentences) crime platform over the perceived Liberal "revolving door" criminal justice platform. Having said that, and as current-events show 'The Hour' George Strombolopolous noted, Harper's partisan political exploitation of the death of one young gun-victim in Toronto centre was particularly crass - something that might work against his crime & punishment image.

Ultimately, the problem for the Liberals is attempting to say something new and novel. The Liberal party has been very reactive thus far in the campaign. To succeed, they are going to have to take a page from the Harper campaign book: energize public perceptions of their party, attack particularly obvious conservative openings (e.g. lack of evidence from the US experience that mandatory minimums do anything other than cost lots of money and lock up the mules of the criminal underworld, or, on the corruption front, that many supposedly corrupt liberal MPs have been exonerated after-the-fact...Judy Sgro & David Dingwall anyone?).

What they should avoid however, is attacking the Conservative party in exactly the same manner that they did during the 2004 campaign. In other words, little to no derogation of Harper on social conservatism or gay marriage - if they're going to broach this issue, it has to be on the Liberal good record only - and to be especially careful of how they go after the conservatives on previous Tory governments penchant for deficits. These tactics can appear weak and reactionary if the Liberals aren't careful.

Israel's Future: Toward the Sensible Centre or the Failed Likud?

I was watching the CBC's sunday report today, and of course, the legacy of Sharon's departure from the Israeli prime ministers office featured largely in that shows broadcast. Sharon's condition remains doubtful. The hemorrhaging in his brain from a severe stroke suffered earlier this week makes a physical comeback unlikely, regardless of whether he is succesfully revived from his induced coma this coming Monday (e.g. due to likely brain damage etc).

All of this has prompted worldwide angst over the future of what has widely been seen as promising developments within Israel towards a viable peace plan in the region. Many analysts point to two major Sharon achievements at the end of what will likely be the finale for his lengthy political career: the Gaza withdrawal and the formation of a new centrist political party, the Kadima party. Both moves are viewed as bold, almost antithetical political moves when compared to Sharon's history as a military general and hawkish nationalist. What causes someone with such traditionally Likud allegiances to abandon his past in favour of an uncharted path to centrism?

Perhaps Sharon realized that nationalist military policies could never achieve peace in the region, and decided to utilize his hefty political clout to make a lasting impact on Israel's chances for peace. Some analysts, such as Noam Chomsky question this entire line of thinking, and note that expanded West bank settlement activity and wall-building has coincided with the comparitively "minor diversion" of the Gaza withdrawal. More harshly cynical, but, sadly, evidence-based analysis from a political scientist with more published credentials on the region than virtually all other commentators.

That having been said, skeptics such as Chomsky fail to note that as far as the "peace process" is concerned, the Palestinians are arguably better off with a pragmatic latter-day Sharon than a hardliner such as Netanyahu. For students of the view that Israeli politicians are severely hampered in their policy choices by a combination of US military-financial support, powerful internal military bureaucracies and the vehement rhetoric of the security-minded nationalists, Sharon deserves credit for (atleast appearing to) turn a new leaf in peace-process policy.

This view is corroborated by CBC foreign correspondent Nallah Ayed, who reports that although the Arab population in the region wishes Sharon "a long suffering death," Arab leaders will miss Sharon's ability to mobilize his political power to accomplish things that few politicians of any stripe can reasonably contemplate. Perhaps Sharon's legacy will pave the way for the continuation of the Kadima party under a centrist leader capable of tapping into the enormous (poll supported) apetite of the Israeli population for less polarized government.

Whether a cynical trade-off or not, the Gaza withdrawal is nonetheless the most significant sign that Israel (and especially its moderate majority) recognizes the inequity of the 1967 conflict and the necessity of unilateral action to correct such greivances. If the upcoming elections in Palestine can avoid a (radical) Hamas party victory - thus prompting Israeli voters to choose Likud out of fear of Palestinian attacks - Kadima-style centrism may still have a post-Sharon future.