________________________________________

Jenny Shutek’s comment on the banning of the full-face veil issue in France seem to miss a few key elements.

First, France has used the Euro as currency since 1999. The fine proposed for wearing a full-face veil are from 150 to 15,000 Euros, not Franc. However, my main criticism is towards the fact that the author seems to misunderstands religion in the French culture. France is a country that had centuries of religious wars. As a result of these wars, France passed very strict laws on secularism in 1905.

These laws forbid, for example, children from wearing a cross while in school. These laws have significantly reduce religious tension in France. It is in that context that one must understand the issue of the Islamic scarf in France.

Banning the full-face veil might or might not be the right answer to this issue, however for most people in France the issue is not between Christianity and Islam, but between a religious or a secular society.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

A similar phenomenon (screaming out loud meaningless numbers) also happened recently at the Copenhagen summit on climate change. When it comes to global warming, we hear talks of reducing CO2 emissions by 10% in 5 years; 20% by 2020; 25% less of now; 30% based on 1990 emissions; etc. Everywhere, officials and politicians are shouting numbers and targets. These promises and numbers have no more chances of becoming reality than I respecting my New Year resolution.

My father often says that politicians that do not respect their promises should be sent to the guillotine. While the style is a bit extreme, he has a point. Politicians do not suffer punishment when promises are broken. Even worse, they regularly are re-elected. And for that no one is to blame but us.

The Kyoto Protocol had ambitious targets and look where it got us? Most of the countries that endorsed it are in no position to reach their targets. Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol under Jean Chrétien and it made his government look good. However, that same government introduced ridiculously insignificant measures when time came to be concrete about global warming. Just read for yourself: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/08/12/kyototue030812.html. The result of inaction is an increase of CO2 emissions of 26% since 1990! We were supposed to reduce them by 6% under the Kyoto protocol. At least the Bush administration was clear that they were not even going to try reaching their targets.

The problem with the Kyoto protocol was not lack of ambitions, but lack of concrete measures. A real reduction of greenhouses gases emissions requires commitment by citizens, industry and institutions. It requires money, methods and penalties. It needs money to build green transportation infrastructures, to mass produce solar panels or protect the Amazon rain forest. And it requires stiff penalties for industries or countries that do not reach their objectives, or worse, do not even try, such as Canada.

All the media focus is on meaningless numbers. While groups are pushing for concrete measures and objectives, this gets no recognitions in press time. The extremely meagre and disappointing Copenhagen Agreement has at least one positive thing that Kyoto Protocol didn’t: measures. The agreement reached in Copenhagen, while disappointing, may be a step in the right direction. In that agreement there are no targets and numbers, but funding. The funding is not enough, however, it is probably better than some ambitious toothless protocol.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

Few have been as honest and insightful as former Deputy Premier Christy Clark on CKNW yesterday. Here’s the video everybody needs to see before they vote in Tuesday’s provincial referendum.

As Christy says, this is the most important vote we’ll cast. Please forward this to everybody you know.

Regards,
Shoni Field
British Columbians for BC-STV

Most world leaders have condemned Russia for its bold move against international law on the day of the Olympics openings.  Without exception, George W. Bush is one of them.  But frankly, when it comes to give lessons on respect of international law, the inventor of the “pre-emptive war” is the worst person to give advices.

For its own interest, the US invaded Iraq in 2003.  Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world (after Saudi Arabia).  The Persian Gulf (where both Iraq and Saudi Arabia are located) is well under the American sphere of influence.  The Caspian Sea region has the second largest oil reserves in the world.  During the Cold War, the Caspian Sea was largely under the control of Moscow.  But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USA has grown to become a strong influence in the region.

Because of Geography, the Caspian Sea reserves are landlocked inside the Eurasian continent.  To get it out of there, the oil must transit into other countries.  But for a series of reasons going from geography and politics, until recently all the oil from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia transited through Russia.  But a new pipeline was built in 2005, making Georgia the only country outside of Russia where the Caspian Sea oil can be exported.  Russia does not want money or oil (they have both), what Russia wants in dominating Georgia is control.  The control of the world’s second largest oil reserves.

In the last few years, Russia has grown rapidly to be a secluded and authoritarian regime.  Long gone are the times of the early 90s where the country experienced a time of political freedom.  Along with restrictions of liberties, Russia has grown to be more and more defiant to the West.  The Putin regime transformed a promising democracy into an authoritarian regime.  Unfortunately, for most people in Russia, democracy has been synonym with corruption and unemployment while the Putin authoritarianism is associated with order and economic growth.  For this, democracy has almost no chance to succeed in Russia any time soon.

To control the access of Caspian Sea oil to Western democracies, Moscow invaded Georgia.  For the same concept of blind national interest, Bush invaded Iraq five years ago.  In both cases, the reason for the move (protecting ethnic minorities in Georgia; removing WMD in Iraq) has been seen as a weak pretext that did not convince much people.

When he talks about respecting other countries territorial integrity, Bush has absolutely no credibility.  Russia’s move is basically applying the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike in its own national interest, without any regard to international law or just plain decency.

Maxime Bernier, said that Canada will never negotiate with terrorists. While I agree, by making this unnecessary comment, our new Minister of Foreign Affairs, transformed a Principle into a Dogma and has made the worst mistake a diplomat can make: give himself no options before a crisis even arises. Given the very important role our Army takes in Afghanistan, it’s remarkable that no Canadians have been kidnapped so far. Lets hope that any potential kidnappers will be scared by his comment and not feel challenged by an irresponsible comment.

Victorious doesn’t make it right

“History is written by the winners” (old proverb)

It looks like the US-UK coalition is going to win the war in Iraq. This victory even seems easier then thought. Though we have to bear in mind that, as of today, the war is far from over. Is an easy conclusion makes a start of a war legitimate?

Polls show that support for war in Iraq by Canadians has extensively increased in the last few weeks. Then, 35% of Canadians backed U.S. President George W. Bush’s military move (Toronto Star; March 22nd) and now 56%, agreed with the U.S. decision to launch an invasion to bring down Saddam Hussein (National Post, April 8th). What makes such a slip in opinion possible?

Alter all, if you were for the war, its easy outcome should be view as a legitimating that this intervention was necessary and you were right to believe that few would support a dictator. On the other hand, if you were against, its easy outcome should be feared as the International System established in place since 1945 is now under threat by unilateralism, not only from an allied, but also from your enemies.

The recent slip in Canadian opinion can only be interpreted, I think, as people following the strongest without questioning its actions. Sure, the strongest is a democracy, but is it defending democracy in this war?

It worries me that so many people can change their opinions on such an important issue so easily. This frivolity makes me think that those people probably don’t view their own opinion as important. And this just makes me sad.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

The facts…

November 22, 2002, Prague (Czech Republic), NATO summit

While giving a speech, President Bush invites his NATO counterparts to increase their defence budget because of the war against terrorism. Listening to this speech, Françoise Ducros, communication adviser of the Canadian Prime Minister, would have said, in private, “what has moron!”

Printed by the press on the two sides of 49th parallel, the declaration, whose author does not remember having said, starts a scandal. For many people, this was the reflection of the anti-American attitude of the Canadian government. One remembers that a former liberal Prime Minister had already said very negative things about Nixon! “I’ve been called worse things by better people.” Jean Chrétien was one of his ministers at the time.

Françoise Ducros, as a good lieutenant, presented her resignation, which the Prime Minister refused. Others polemics, and she represented her resignation because “en raison de la controverse, il me sera impossible d’accomplir mon travail” (because of the controversy, it will be impossible for me to achieve my duty). Jean Chrétien finally accepts her resignation.

The why…

What interests me is not the polemic, but the why the polemic. There is undoubtedly almost every day small sentences that could create diplomatic incidents here and there. But why this small sentence, which was perhaps never pronounced, initiated passions. Because, said or not, it says very loudly what many people think.

If George Bush and his administration had a reputation of moderation and not of confrontation. If his administration did not unilaterally support the Sharon government and its will of expels Yasser Arafat, instead of reaching a hand to both parts in what is a very complex conflict. If he had not simply rejected Kyoto without consulting anybody. If he were able to see nuances in a complex world and not to declare that the world is a simple dichotomy “You are with us or against us”. Would this sentence have done such an effect?

I do not think so. We would either forgotten an isolated sentence taken out of context or really put the emphasis on the fact that Mrs. Ducros does not remember to have said it at all. Because, after all, let’s be serious “anti-Americanism” is much more than small declarations say on the spur of the moment.

No memory…

September 20, 2001, President Bush makes a speech to thank for international support, which his country received during the difficult times it has just lived. The countries mentioned are numerous, but here we notice an omission however: Canada! Outcry in Canada, how President Bush could forget their “faithful allied to the north”. The Chrétien government ends the contention by a small formula: “the supports of Canada is obvious and does not need to be mentioned”. Nice formula, which will make it possible Bush to come to Canada a few weeks later and to repeat to those who did not already know that Canada is a friend of the USA.

Who had the idea of the formula?
Françoise Ducros. And today she is labelled as anti-American!

There are in Israel (like everywhere) two principal political movements. In a very simplistic way: Likoud (on the right) and the Labour (on the left). Ariel Sharon (current right-wing Prime Minister) was the head of a government of coalition gathering the two main parties. Often difficult, the coalition collapsed recently with the departure of Benjamin Ben-Eliezer (the chief of the Labour Party). The Prime Minister tried to create a new coalition, but failed, and thus producing new elections.

New elections and political repositioning.

The end of the coalition involves new elections and each camp selects a new leader. On the right, the fight is between a hawk and a hawk (not very interesting). For the record, Sharon was re-elected. But on the Labour Party there are two candidates.
- Benjamin Ben-Eliezer (hawk, favourable to the coalition with the Likoud and wanting to wait the end of the terror attacks before negotiating)
- Amram Mitzna (dove, against any coalition with the Likoud and wants to immediately begin negotiations with the Palestinians)

Mitzna, an outsider for many years, became leader of the Labour party. For the first time in a long time, the leader of one of the main Israeli political parties is ready to considerable concessions with the Palestinians. For example, he supports the return in Israel, forced if necessary, of the Jewish settlers. Even the pacifist, Yitzhak Rabin (assassinated in 1995) was not open to such a compromise.

A victory of the pacifists?

After 2 years of coalition, which saw the Labour Party having the same positions of the Likoud, the Israelis do not have great trust in the Labour. The Labour Party became so weak that all agree on one point: it will not win the next election. The January 28, 2003 elections will see the re-election of Ariel Sharon. Perhaps even with a majority for his party, which is very rare in Israel!

But is this announced failure the failure of the Israeli pacifist movement? One simple answer: no! This announced failure is initially the rejection from the Labour sympathisers of the strategy of their party to blindly follow Ariel Sharon. Instead of being the alternative to the government, the Labour was its good conscience. Instead of influencing the government, they subordinated without questioning.

Amram Mitzna has a huge task in front of him: to rebuild the Labour Party. The success of this task will not be seen at the time of the January elections, but at the time of the next elections. Because with its policy, it is unavoidable, for the good of Israel, that the Sharon government collapses. Better the failure of a government than the failure of a country.

Updates:
1. Sharon and the Likoud did win the elections (but no majority).
2. Amram Mitzna resigned as leader of the Labour Party in may 2003.

________________________________________

The United States dropped Arafat and confined themselves 100% behind Sharon and his policy of violence escalation. I do not see what Arafat did to deserve to be to treated this way by Washington. Unless to fight for the liberation of his people is a crime (which is not the case, I checked), the total support of Ariel Sharon (whose list of the crimes is quite as impressive that those of Arafat) is not only one serious error, but also legitimating of the imperialist policy of Israel towards the Palestinians. Policy whose objectives are clear. In the short run: isolating the Palestinian authority to have in front of them extremists (the Hamas) with whom it would be completely legitimate not to discuss. In the long run: transforming the Palestinian people into a Diaspora to be able to colonize their land.

As always, the homo americanus is unable to understand a conflict in other way than a conflict of personality. But, as in any conflict, it is not only a disagreement between two persons (Sharon and Arafat), but the proper aspirations of two people to be. One to be in security, and the other to govern itself.

Admittedly, Arafat made some errors. The predecessor of Sharon (Ehud Barak) and Arafat were close to an agreement (it seems), when Arafat started to move back somewhat. More recently, the issue of the ship full of weapons coming from Iran and intended for the Palestinian authority was undoubtedly badly managed (The Palestinian authority initially denied the facts before its implications was acknowledged by the traffickers themselves). Whereas it would have much simpler to acknowledge while recalling the inefficiency of Kalachnikov towards M16!

In all of this, the Israeli falcons, faithful to the law of retaliation (eye for eye, tooth for tooth), use their military superiority to strangle a little more each time the Palestinian authority. To stop one asks of Arafat the impossible: to control his people. How can he control all the elements of his people when he needs his identity papers to to go to the John? And this on behalf of another people which could not prevent one of its citizens from assassinating its Prime Minister in 1995! I do not know how long this policy can last, nor even if it can succeed (no matter how much you dislake a policy, one must always acknowledge that it CAN succeed), but I am certain of this: No one is always the most powerfull.

“Eye for eye will make the world blind” (Mohandas Gandhi).