Colby File

Round-up

2008-11-20T21:22:00.001-05:00

1) John B. Judis, "Debt Man Walking", The New Republic: A synopsis of America's debt problem in light of the international global economy - ie, "Breton Woods II".

2) Lexington, "Ship of fools", Economist: This publication, which can hardly be conspiratorialy characterized as a member of the 'liberal media', sharply criticizes the Republican Party's contempt for intelligensia.

3) Blake Hounshell, "One oddity about the al Qaeda tape", Foreign Policy: Al Qaeda shows its racist streak, which isn't limited to Jews.

4) Harold Meyerson, "A Job for Henry Waxman", Washington Post: An argument in favor of Henry Waxman as the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee.

Something from a movie

2008-07-30T12:56:00.002-04:00

Vladimir Putin's remarks after finding out that Mechel, Russia's biggest steel producer, run by Igor Zyunzin, has been charging its domestic customers more than its foreign ones seem like something from a Hollywood mofia movie, especially the comment about getting Zyunzin a doctor (IHT).

One-size-fits-all ideology

2008-07-30T12:47:00.003-04:00

Jonathan Chait dissects Naomi Klein's one-size-fits-all answer to the world's ills (TNR). The picture Chait paints is far from flattering from the would-be heir to Noam Chomsky. Several months ago, the NDP's Leslie Campbell offered a scathing critique, attacking the foundation of Klein's ideology (LRC).

Lazy Journalism: the flip-flop trap

2008-07-15T18:20:00.000-04:00

I grow increasingly cynical of the news media these days when it comes to superficial coverage. I’m tired of the claim, counter-claim reporting. Where’s the analysis? It’s not enough, and in some cases, ethical to simply repeat a statement. Moreover, I grow weary of another form of superficial journalism – the go-to-crutch of political commentary – the ‘flip-flop’.

Ruth Marcus is right. Not every shift in policy equates to a ‘flip-flop’, much less a one-size-fits-all transgression. A shift may come as a result of changing circumstances or signal pragmatic considerations. It may even suggest open-mindedness, where a political actor changes his or her mind. In some cases, a political actor is accused of ‘flip-flopping’ based on a shift in tone as opposed to actual policy (TNR).

Our news sources continue to let us down. Yesterday’s editorial in the G&M, entitled “The quest for the middle”, exemplifies such superficial journalism. There is no discussion, much less analysis, on the practical concerns surrounding the new FISA bill and Telco immunity, for example (Wes Alwan).

It’s simply easier to reinforce the ‘conventional wisdom’ than to actually do some analysis.

Misrepresentation: A Door to Fraud

2008-07-15T18:17:00.000-04:00

Alex Ely picks up on a couple BBC stories on conmen who “pose as sports agents and dupe young, would-be soccer players” in Africa (FP Passport). Ely then quotes Sepp Blatter, President of FIFA, in order to make his/her point:

European clubs are often the subjects of the wildest dreams of young African soccer players. They have a responsibility to see that these dreams are not abused by criminals.

It should go without saying: creating false pretenses and misrepresentations is and will always be central to the practice of fraud. Moreover, fraudsters tend to target the most vulnerable members of society by exploiting the hope of desperate people – from miracle cancer cures to escaping poverty with potentially lucrative signing or football career. What changes is the method.*

I don’t agree with Ely, here. I’m not ready to put the ‘responsibility’ of fighting fraud squarely on the shoulders of those who are having their names misused as part of a hoax. Arguably there is a moral obligation to take action to prevent fraud from being committed in your name. However, the matter of fraud not only harms the one being defrauded, but also deprives the person or place whose name is being misused from the goodwill normally associated with them. Ely’s quip is incomplete.

* … and sometimes who. Some very lucrative fraud schemes in North America defrauded people who still have no idea that they’ve been duped (ftc.gov).

Continuing Conversation

2008-07-15T18:15:00.000-04:00

Archbishop Fred Hiltz relies upon a tried and true cliché – ‘continuing conversation’ – in his opinion piece about same-sex marriage and the 2008 Lambeth Conference this morning (G&M). However, just because it’s cliché does not mean I don’t put any stock in it. To the contrary, in my personal experience, there are the ‘believers’ who focus largely on destination, and those whose priorities center around deliberative process, along with the many shades in between.

As a matter of personal preference in my struggles with faith, I’d rather go through doubt whether I’m truly on God’s side instead of being sure that He’s on mine.

Some Self-Criticism Please: Canadian Health Care

2008-07-14T18:09:00.002-04:00

In a bizarre turn of events, an off-handed comment I made about waiting 2-4 months for an MRI, and another 6-8 months to have the surgery for my knee, sparked a heated debate about Canadian health care with two people I had recently met. Aside from learning that I apparently make a bad, or at least controversial, first impression, I realized that I generally have three points I like to make about Canadian health care.

1. A significant number of Canadians are dreadfully ignorant and misinformed about how health care systems operate in Canada.

2. These health care systems are flawed.

3. We are terribly reluctant to admit the first two points, especially the second, because for some reason, many Canadians attach a national identity to health care.

This last point is what irks me. (a) It seems terribly dubious to attach one’s identity to a service, which is partially covered by the government. (b) By identifying flaws in the system, one’s patriotism is often called into question. And (c) we could use some self-criticism in Canada without immediately drawing upon reflexive and ultimately irrelevant comparisons with the US.

Strange Optics: Abortion in Canada

2008-07-14T18:06:00.000-04:00

The most frustrating aspect of controversial public policy debate, such as abortion, is that the extremes tend to dominate the framing of the debate. The controversy over Henry Morgentaler’s Order of Canada demonstrates this unfortunate phenomenon, which Reginald Stackhouse captures nicely (G&M):

Fundamental to the argument is the passion with which each side remains transfixed by loyalty to an unreal absolute – life or choice.

In the eyes of anti-abortionists, Dr. Morgentaler is still the Great Satan because they see him unilaterally ignoring the sanctity of human life, including a fetus. Why is that irrational? Because they otherwise passively accept the state's right to take human life if it serves the state's legitimate purpose. So they condone police officers being given authority under certain conditions to take a life. They are passive when Canadian soldiers kill not only Taliban terrorists but Afghan civilians when bombs are dropped from the air.

“Pro-life” thus means protecting the life of the unborn, but not always the life of the born. Yet, being pro-choice is no more rational, regardless of how sophisticated and articulate its champions are.

Basic to their case is commitment to a woman's having unconditional freedom to choose whether she will proceed with an abortion. In a democratic society, that could appeal to any of us except for its being grounded in the same shifting sands of their “pro-life” opponents.

Their appeal for an absolute freedom of choice ignores how no one has a right to that freedom if we want the basic social order that makes a civilized society possible. Those who argue the “pro-choice” line ignore how they – like the rest of us – have to accept limits on our freedom to choose all the time. None of us, for example, is free to disseminate “hate” propaganda. Nor to take “porn” pictures of children. Minors are protected against adult predators who would love the freedom to choose kids for sex instead of adults. In short, men and women have our freedom to choose truncated every day, all day. Why should society not have the right to legislate when and where abortions are licit and illicit?

These strange optics distract from important practical concerns – eg, laws affirming an abortion right (Ottawa Citizen); policies streamlining medical access; and denouncing horrible practices, such as late term abortions.

Of Interest

2008-05-22T15:07:00.000-04:00

• Jeffery Goldberg discusses how Jewish leaders, such as Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, may not appear to be sufficiently pro-Israel to an American audience. When you’re half a world away from the conflict, it’s easier to draw absolutes and conflate individual issues with a ‘for or against’ position regarding Israel. The irony is as Goldberg observes, ‘unthinking support can hurt Israel’.

• George Packer outlines the rise and fall of the modern Republican brand (The New Yorker).

Why does the Wall Street Journal Hate America?

2008-05-22T15:05:00.000-04:00

Scott Horton questions the WSJ’s respect for “the men and women in uniform who run [America’s] military justice system” (Harper’s). Horton summarizes three broad issues related to the military tribunals in light of the Hamdan case: (1) timing, (2) political manipulation and (3) upholding military legal traditions. And he bolsters his argument by noting that a significant number of military lawyers questioned the military tribunal system as devised by the Bush administration.

All true. However, Horton over-stretches. Just because the WSJ criticizes a position that Horton holds, and happens to share with military lawyers, does not mean that the WSJ hates America. But then again, that’s Horton’s point – to demonstrate the bizarre logic employed by those who are quick to label others as America haters.

I find the WSJ’s strawman of “lawyers” against the military justice system rather disturbing. Obviously, there is no monolithic group of bloodsucking lawyers, who gain up to undermine American justice. Creating a fictitious adversary sure makes it easier to tear them down. However, this strawman disregards the actual principles in question, namely those of Anglo-American judicial values. Hopefully, the WSJ does not believe that we should readily dispense with these values for the sake of expediency.

Break

2008-05-22T15:04:00.001-04:00

Well, my schedule has been rather hectic these past few months. And frankly, something had to give. As a result, my blogging has been sporadic at best, and non-existent for the past six weeks. Although I may not have the time to write as much as I previously did, I hope to flag articles that catch my eye and to offer analysis when possible.

Pakistan Paradox

2008-04-04T08:10:00.001-04:00

Dennis Ross of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy offers some suggestions to the next President of the United States on how to address “the Pakistan paradox” (TNR). There are multiple layers of irony. It is no secret that Pakistani authorities often turned a blind eye to Taliban activity in the country’s border areas, namely the Waziristan region. Musharraf attempted to hedge his bets with conservative religious parties in these areas while cooperating the US and Nato allies. But the second twist is that the Awami National Party (ANP), which replaced Musharraf’s government in the last election, does not sympathize with al-Qaeda, opposing talks with the international terrorist organization. Rather, the ANP favours talking with local tribes.

So what is Ross’ advice?

One thing is for sure: There has been a change in Pakistan, and it is being driven by those who are emphasizing democratic processes and the rule of law. We should be on the right side of this. What's more, we have little choice. Pakistanis are moving in a direction that we cannot stop but should try to channel. That is common sense and good statecraft.

But as the Pakistanis make their decisions, they should also know that we have interests and stakes and will not be indifferent to what they do. Surely, for their own interests, they don't want those who employ terror and who are responsible for killing Benazir Bhutto to further entrench themselves. Separating the tribal groups from Al Qaeda and the Taliban is a strategy that could work if orchestrated effectively.

To be sure, the new Pakistani leadership might be tempted to cut a deal with Al Qaeda and the Taliban that would see them stop their attacks in Pakistan by permitting them to operate and plan attacks at our expense. We need to prevent that, and we probably can, if we are clear about our interests and needs. We should say that we will help provide financial and other means for their new strategy, assuming it is transparent. We should also repeat what Senator Barack Obama said last summer: If we get actionable intelligence about terror acts being prepared in these provinces of Pakistan and the Pakistanis won't act, we will.

Yoo’s Infamous Memoranda: a legal rubber-stamp for a political agenda

2008-04-04T08:09:00.000-04:00

John Yoo’s infamous 2003 memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel at the US DOJ to the Pentagon has been declassified. In it, Yoo argues that certain federal laws do not apply to military interrogators in the war on terror. The Washington Post has divided it up into two parts:
Part 1 and Part 2.

I do not hold a degree from Harvard or Yale and I do not teach law at the University of California at Berkley. However, in my humble opinion, I think that Jack Goldsmith, who replaced Yoo, hit the nail on the head. This memo, along with its 2002 predecessor, stands out for “the unusual lack of care and sobriety in [the] legal analysis.” And this says nothing about the disastrous implications of these memoranda.

On that note, Scott Horton rightly questions the circumstances surrounding the “torture memoranda” (Harper’s). It appears that the OLC served as a rubber-stamp for the political agenda of the White House, namely Dick Cheney, and Rumsfeld’s lawyer, William J. (“Jim”) Haynes II. But more importantly, the memoranda offset the pushback coming from the more sober minded military officials (The New Yorkers).

Aside from the deplorable issue of torture itself, the bizarre relationship between the OLC and the White House demonstrates for a second time that the Bush administration is willing to use and has used the US DOJ as a political instrument. The first instance, off the top of my mind, was the DOJ firing scandal.

What happened to the rule of law?

N.B.: In speaking to Esquire magazine, Yoo attempts to minimize the impact of his legal opinions (via TPM Muckraker)

Al-Jazeera’s Anti-American Bias

2008-04-04T08:06:00.000-04:00

According to the Associated Press, Dave Marash, former “Nightline” reporter, quit al-Jazeera “due in part to an anti-American bias”, which apparently stems “more from British administrators than Arabs” (IHT). Marash said that there was a “reflexive adversarial editorial stance” against Americans, which he found “became so stereotypical, so reflexive” that he got angry. He was the last American-accented anchor at the network, and supposedly more Canadians than Americans work at the Washington office.

Goofy Op-Ed Against Canada’s Recognition of Kosovo’s Independence

2008-03-26T23:23:00.002-04:00

Scott Taylor argues that Canada should come to its senses, and withdraw its recognition of Kosovo’s independence (Embassy).

While I am more than willing to recognize well thought-out and articulate arguments against such recognition of independence, Taylor’s op-ed falls well short of the mark.

1) He insinuates that the Canadian government placates the Americans, regardless of the merits:

Canada sat on the fence for 30 days, but finally caved in to pressure from the U.S. State Department. So other than once again placating the Americans, what exactly has Canada achieved through this formal recognition of independence?

Let's start by taking the emotional issues off the table and examining the background.

Worse yet, the subsequent appeal to logic directly contradicts the preceding emotional jab at the U.S., ironically suggesting that his appeal to reason is insincere.

2) Taylor’s agreement that Quebec’s situation differs from Kosovo’s is seemingly disingenuous too. He makes the case that Kosovo remains dependent on foreign aid, which is true, while “Quebec is already far more independent than Kosovo can be”. The implication is that Quebec has more of an argument for separation than Kosovo regardless of recent history, genocide and oppression in the Balkans. As I’ve said before, here and here, this context makes a great deal of difference.

3) Finally, the author suggests that the true Kosovo flag resembles Albania’s, and not the “American-designed” flag. Presumably, Taylor thinks that the Kosovo flag should incorporate the eagle reflecting the prominence of ethnic Albanian Kosovars. However, I’m not quite sure why he felt compelled to add “American-designed” in order to make the point instead of stating it outright. I’m also curious why he fails to recognize the intent of Kosovo’s officials, namely Fadil Hysa, who said “We will not have the flag of any other country” (CSM).

Remarkable Speech

2008-03-21T12:13:00.002-04:00

Barack Obama's speech on race earlier this week stands out as nothing short of remarkable.

Full Text (NYT)

Happy Easter / Joyeuses Pâques

2008-03-21T12:10:00.001-04:00

Have a good long weekend.

Canadian Foreign Policy Q&A

2008-02-18T21:18:00.001-05:00

David Eaves draws attention to tomorrow’s Q&A at the Globe & Mail regarding Canadian foreign policy. As some background, here are the participants’ written opinions: Lloyd Axworthy, Jack Granastein and Eaves (G&M).

I find it remarkable how preoccupied our foreign policy discussions are with the United States. In the op-eds, Axworthy indulges in some Bush bashing, while Granastein takes a generally warmer approach to the southern neighbor. However, Eaves notably attempts to identify Canadian goals without the need to compare or contrast them to American foreign policy.

Clinton & Obama: Their Legislative Records

2008-02-18T21:16:00.001-05:00

It seems like common sense to refer to a presidential candidate’s prior record in an effort to see how that person may govern once in power. Obviously, one cannot know for sure, as circumstances change. Past experience may nevertheless inform and identify philosophical leanings, tendencies and one’s general modus operandi.

Accordingly, a qualitative as opposed to a quantitative examination of the candidates’ records should prove useful. Hilzoy, at Obsidian Wings, offers such an analysis in a well-researched series of posts on Clinton’s and Obama’s respective legislative records. As early as 24 Oct 2006, Hilzoy observes Obama’s MO of cooperation and conciliation. But more to the point, the candidate apparently knows “the way to a wonk’s heart” on a number of topics, including but not limited to: nuclear nonproliferation, avian flu, the regulation of genetic testing and reducing medical malpractice suits. Last week, Hilzoy listed the the bills and amendments that each candidate sponsored, along with those that they cosponsored. Please note not only the number of bills and amendments but also their significance.

Declaration of Independence

2008-02-18T21:15:00.001-05:00

As expected, Kosovo declares independence (NYT)

UPDATE: Chris Borgen has more (Opinio Juris).

UPDATE: Elena Baylis ponders the sui generis argument (Intlawgrrls).

Healthcare Frustration

2008-02-18T21:14:00.001-05:00

Personally, I do not share the seemingly mythic popular view of Canada’s health care system(s). While I wholeheartedly support universal healthcare, I realize that there are a number of ways to achieve this goal.

In this light, I sympathize with Lorne Gunter’s frustration as governments reject healthcare solutions, including that of the Kawacatoose First Nation (NP). There’s obviously a problem when hubris, stubbornness and/or ideology get in the way of common sense.

Of Interest

2008-02-18T21:12:00.001-05:00

• The editors of Small Wars Journal review Frank Hoffman’s recent work, “Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars” (Potomac Institute):

…[I]t is too simplistic to merely classify conflict as “Big and Conventional” versus “Small or Irregular.” Today’s enemies, and tomorrow’s, will employ combinations of warfare types.

• Ramesh Thakur argues in favour of R2P (Ottawa Citizen).

Contrary to my own personal beliefs, I offered a counter-argument during the Great Canadian Debate.

• Both Ximena Ortiz and Michael Crowley articulate how the Clintons and the Republicans grossly mischaracterize Barack Obama’s foreign policies and previous stances even if they are not impenetrable to legitimate criticism (National Interest and TNR).

• Thomas Walkom discusses Canadian security certificates, and in a letter to the editor, Matthew Behrens argues that “Canada’s hands are dirty” in the use of evidence obtained by torture (Toronto Star).

• The Conservatives attempt to manipulate the Senate, using the crime bill as election bait (Toronto Star).

• Dan Gardner has an interesting take on hate speech (Ottawa Citizen).

Tolerating Torture

2008-02-14T20:23:00.000-05:00

I readily admit that I have not evenly covered the presidential nomination races of both parties. I’ve directed most my attention toward the Democratic primaries. However, I the Republican front runner deserves consideration too.

Personally, I have long respected John McCain’s persona as a war hero and a straight-talking maverick who acts on principle over personal advancement. But I’m rather disappointed McCain’s opaque explanation for why he failed to endorse the Conference Committee’s intelligence authorization bill, which Congress narrowly scuttled yesterday.

Professor Marty Lederman duly acknowledges McCain’s statement on the matter, and reproduces it in its entirety. The problem, as Lederman points out, is that McCain’s stance enables the CIA to continue with its “enhanced interrogation techniques”, including those which he himself opposes (Balkinization). Section 327 (ie, the Feinstein Amendment) limits ALL government agencies to the use of interrogation techniques found in the Army Field Manual 2-22.3. While McCain is expressly against waterboarding, only one of many dubious interrogation methods, he does not explain which techniques the CIA should be allowed to use that the military cannot, or whether those techniques are found on the dubious list of “enhanced interrogation techniques”.

It is worth noting that the current administration’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” are ILLEGAL under both American and international law.

Andrew Sullivan, an “Obamacan” (ie, a Republican who supports Barack Obama), is “heartbroken”. Sullivan writes: “As president himself, of course, McCain would surely instruct the CIA to uphold the American way of interrogation, and not to adopt techniques once used by the Gestapo and prosecuted by the US as war crimes. But we now know that there will be one difference between Obama and McCain in November. One will never tolerate torture; the other just did.”

As a Christian, this is a big issue for me, and I previously took it for granted that all the current presidential candidates were on the same page. Clinton and Obama both endorsed the bill, and it was McCain and Colin Powell who vehemently challenged John Yoo, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales with respect to torture. Why is it so difficult to wrap up this perverse debate?

Reality Sets In

2008-02-14T20:19:00.001-05:00

1) President Hugo Chávez meets increasing resistance as reality sets in about his socialist utopia (NYT).

2) Last week, the Washington Post reported that the al-Qaeda leadership “is telling its followers to soften their tactics in order to regain popular support” in Iraq. To be sure, it must be difficult to win ‘hearts and minds’ in the face of such brutality.

3) Residents in “Tribal Pakistan” (ie, the Baluchistan Province along the Afghan border) find that religious parties are not all they’re cracked up to be. Faiz Muhammad says, “They did not serve the people” (NYT).

Of Interest

2008-02-14T20:17:00.000-05:00

• Hamas’ Brief PR Coup: Dennis Ross, Ziegler distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute, offers suggestions on what the US should do in the wake of Hamas’s brief public relations coup by destroying part of the border fence between Egypt and Gaza (TNR).

• Racial Tightrope: Jeff Zeleny and Kitty Bennet examine Barack Obama’s navigation of the a racial tightrope before his canmpaign (NYT).

• Anticipating Republican Attack Campaigns: Eugene Robinson mocks people who are “dreaming up dilemmas” and fantasizing about ‘the Republican smear machine’ (WaPo).

• French Support for Chad: Both Le Monde’s editorial board and Jean-François Bayart articulate their displeasure with Paris’ s diplomatic and military support for Idriss Déby (in French).

Afghanistan: Home Front Frustration

2008-02-14T20:15:00.001-05:00

I increasingly grow frustrated with the mission in Afghanistan for a number of reasons. The U.S. continues bumbling with its misguided policies (eg, poppy eradication), and finds itself distracted and mired in Iraq. Deadbeat NATO allies continue to shunt their international responsibilities. The Afghan leadership prefers to jettison candid analysis and strategy (FT) as the country’s government struggles to hold itself together (Carolyn O’Hara). And the Canada’s fence sitting on the home front proves problematic.

Canada’s half-hearted approach has led to some rather embarrassing situations. Notably, the country’s leadership decided to hand detainees over to Afghan authorities and to pretend that they would receive better care than they would with the Americans. Instead of challenging the US or creating another detention regime, Canadian leadership opted for the passive route, careful not to disturb sensibilities at home vis-à-vis the US and not to ruffle any American feathers. *A truly principled stand.*

As Canadians grow restless with the mission’s direction, the Conservatives and Liberals begin to hash out a deal (Toronto Star). In trying to understand the nature of the tension at home, David Eaves wonders if it relates to Canadian mythology surrounding peacekeeping and peacebuilding. Are Canadian expectations out of sync with today’s reality?

Although I’m inclined to agree with Eaves, there’s more to it than that. I’ll use a personal anecdote to illustrate the point:

In the middle of a fairly heated debate with a colleague, I suddenly realized that I failed to grasp the fundamental reasoning for why he objected to the mission in Afghanistan. (N.B.: For the sake of anonymity, I’ll call my friend, “M”. No pun intended.) “M” spoke to a number of failings in Afghanistan, but remained vague as to why Canada should pull out, as if the failings themselves sufficed. He never expressly made a link between those shortcomings and why he felt that Canadian troops should leave.

While I obviously cannot engage in a word-for-word assessment, I came away with the same ambiguous impression with M as I get in listening to Jack Layton of the NDP. Despite earlier voicing concerns that the mission was unbalanced (CTV) and that Canada was merely following the Bush administration, Layton ultimately feels that it’s futile (Toronto Star).

Two issues stand out. First, Layton’s play with the literal meaning and general impression of such words is quite remarkable. For example, his criticism of following the Bush administration too closely is easily seen as legitimate. However, the general impression of such an assertion creates a tacit connection of Afghanistan to Iraq.

Second, the mission’s so-called futility becomes a justification for withdrawal, disregarding its consequences. This analysis is as horribly incomplete as it is morally irresponsible. I find it ironic that that a realist, Lee Kuan Yew sums up the position well (United Press International):

The United States, said this key player in every major Asian event for almost half a century, "should realize Afghanistan cannot succeed as a democracy. You attempted too much. Let the warlords sort it out in such a way you don't try to build a new state. The British tried and failed. Just make clear if they commit aggression again and offer safe haven to Taliban, they will be punished."

(Hat Tip Blake Hounshell)

A Novel Solution For Campaign Finance Reform

2008-02-08T18:04:00.001-05:00

Ian Ayres and Bruce Ackerman present a seemingly novel and persuasive proposal on the issue of campaign finance (Freakonomics). Ayres and Ackerman suggest less transparency, not more. They use the basic concept of the secret ballot as their model, where the identities of donors are kept secret from political candidates. They have a recent piece in the Guardian advocating the “secret-donation booth”.

Canadians might like to consider this option in light of our own issues with lobbyists and the relative failings of the registry system (Democracy Watch).

Globalizing Sport

2008-02-08T08:15:00.000-05:00

The Brits have reservations about internationalizing Premier League ‘football’ (aka, soccer) (Guardian).

Notionally, globalizing sport may prove to be a constructive endeavour – economically by broadening the fan base and making the game more accessible to new fans – and diplomatically by exposing aspects of one’s country to other areas of the world. There are obviously pragmatic hurdles, which may or may not make good business sense. But I think that casually dismissing the idea would constitute a mistake, notably for failing to even consider a potential opportunity.

Incidentally, I find the second line of reasoning compelling in promoting amateur sport, namely the Olympics. These sporting events serve as a rare opportunity to present one’s country to the rest of the world. I believe that Canadians should keep this in mind when it comes to the dismal funding of our athletes. To casually dismiss the idea by suggesting such funding will come at the expense of health care is short-sighted and sloppy.

Of Interest

2008-02-08T08:14:00.000-05:00

1) The Guardian reports:

The Archbishop of Canterbury prompted controversy today when he said the introduction of sharia law for British Muslims was "unavoidable".

I’ve often marveled at how English common law allows for diversity and pragmatism. For example, Canadian law allows room for aboriginal rights and title, which might otherwise prove problematic in a rigid Romanist civil law tradition. However, my gut reaction is to hesitate at the idea of incorporating religious law. One central question in my mind is whether the inclusion of sharia law is analogous to that of talmudic law in the UK. Andrew Brown remains skeptical (Guardian).

2) Bob Thompson writes about Harvard historian, Drew Faust, in “challenging history” (WaPo).

I wish we paid more attention to good historians. I get the sad impression that folks give too much credence to academics with a questionable grip on historical analysis (eg, Chomsky).

3) Opinio Juris is holding a fascinating discussion on God & Gold. From the academic dialogue, Walter Russell Mead’s new book appears to be an intriguing read and world-view.

A French Problem: Déby

2008-02-08T08:12:00.001-05:00

Philippe Hugon criticizes “indirect, but decisive” French support for the Déby regime (Le Monde). Obviously, enabling abusive strongmen has been an ugly part of European foreign policy too.

Obama Central

2008-02-06T18:56:00.000-05:00

I’ve been struggling to make sense of last night’s results. At the end of Super Tuesday, the Democratic primary race is at a dead heat, with enough room for both the Clinton and Obama campaigns to spin it as a victory. The pundits, politicos and pollsters seem to sway back-n-forth giving the edge to either candidate depending on a variety of factors, including their own biases (lest we forget). Similarly, my posts, here, at the Colby File resemble something akin to ‘Obama Central’, although I’m not alone (eg, Matthew Yglesias, Andrew Sullivan and Taylor Owen).

Clinton won at least 8 states, including big prizes – NY, MA and CA. Obama won the majority of states – no less than 13. However, with the number of delegates still outstanding, it remains unclear as to with whom the advantage resides. For the moment, some networks believe that Obama “will wind up with” more – “840 to 849 versus 829 to 838 for Clinton” (Politico).

In moving forward, Noam Scheiber thinks that the future favours Obama and here’s why (TNR):

The next round of contests, slated for Saturday, includes Lousiana, Washington state, Nebraska, and the Virgin Islands. Lousiana is going to be nearly 50 percent African American, Nebraska and Washington are caucuses, which Obama dominated tonight, and the Virgin Islands are the Virgin Islands. (Though, if I must, I think people give Obama the advantage there for demographic reasons, too.) The next day is Maine, also a caucus, and then one week from last night is Virginia, Maryland, DC--all expectated to favor Obama demographically. The Tuesday after that brings Hawaii--Obama's native state--and Wisconsin, which should also be friendly territory for Obama.

And then we wait two weeks and throw-down in Texas and Ohio, at which point a lot of people think this competition could end. (Rhode Island and Vermont also go that day.) Between the Latinos in Texas and Hillary's establishment support in Ohio, those will almost certainly be her firewall states. On the other hand, Obama is going to have two weeks to focus on those two states alone. Between his near-certain money advantage, the momentum he'll pick up from the intervening contests, and the fact that he tends to do pretty well in states where he has time to campaign, I think you have to give him the overall edge going forward.

NRO writer and conservative, David Frum, makes two interesting points:

(1)

The economically anxious are voting for Clinton; the economically secure prefer Obama. When Obamaniacs urge Americans to vote their hopes, not their fears, they are overlooking the rather important fact that the Democratic base is made up of a lot of people with a lot of fears.

(2)

Meanwhile, here's a funny bit of gossip: On the Hillary Clinton plane, Sidney Blumenthal has been telling reporters that Obama will be vulnerable to the Republican attack machine because of his past association with left-wing causes, including his membership in an Afrocentric church. Skill-testing question: If you worked for the Republican attack machine, which would you put to better use: some sermons by a pastor nobody has ever heard of? Or a $31 million payoff by a shadowy mining promoter to the husband of the Democratic nominee?

Hillary Clinton has a lot going for her as a candidate - above all, the widespread memory of her husband's administration as a more prosperous time for middle-income and lower-income workers. But as a target of attack ads, she remains as ever the biggest, roundest bulls-eye in American politics.

With respect to the first point, I haven’t yet seen any polls or surveys as to the respective income of voting groups to support Frum’s contention. Even though, fromCNN’s coverage last night, this argument seems to be part of the ‘conventional wisdom’, I’ll take it with a dash of skepticism until I see such a poll/survey/etc.

On the second point, the fear that Obama will somehow be more vulnerable to ‘the Republican smear machine’ than Hillary seems to defy evidence to the contrary. The name Clinton has the remarkable ability to rally the Republican base and polarize the US. The same cannot be said for Obama. Besides, Hillary has a lot of baggage, especially her hubby, with which she must contend.

Essentially, I just don’t buy into the notion that “[b]etter the devil you know than the diffident debutante you don’t” (NYT). It’s one thing to proceed with caution in the face of the unknown, and quite another for it to justify paralysis.

As for that pesky ‘experience argument’ that keeps rearing its ugly head, I stand perplexed when I actually compare the records of Clinton and Obama. From another perspective, Andrew Sullivan examines Obama’s executive acumen in running a campaign, finding much to admire. Sadly, however, memes are hard to kill, especially when sound-bites replace good judgment and attention to detail in today’s news media.

UPDATE:

Note the problems with excessive "fandom" (TPM).

(Hat Tip Andrew Sullivan)

Quote of the Day

2008-02-05T18:13:00.000-05:00

I suspect that Jack Cunningham’s blog is perhaps one of the most underrated in the Canadian blogosphere. Despite his verbose style, Cunningham’s mix of common sense, humour, word play and diverse interests make for an enjoyable read. His latest post adeptly manages to mock both Ezra Levant and Syed Soharwardy while simultaneously arguing in favour of Private Member’s Motion, M-446 (Whig):

… gracelessness of prose, charmlessness of persona, mediocrity of intellect, even hypocrisy do not make a man a fit target for such harassment. Levant is as free to be a braying twerp as the proprietors of stormfront are to be anti-Semitic scum; both should be free to say what they choose, short of direct incitement of harm to identifiable individuals.

Jack, you need to get yourself a column.

How did Bin Laden Escape?

2008-02-05T18:11:00.000-05:00

David Pugliese notes an upcoming book sure to ruffle some feathers - Not a Good Day to Die: The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda (Defence Watch). A former Army officer, under the nom de plume, Dalton Fury, discusses the strategic and tactical failings in Tora Bora, which allowed Osama Bin Laden to escape eastern Afghanistan. Needless to say, “US Special Operations Command is not too happy”.

Posers: A Democratic Façade

2008-02-05T18:10:00.001-05:00

Human Rights Watch released its World Report 2008, which highlights the problem of “despots masquerading as democrats”. Peggy McGuinness questions why Europe and the US continue to push for elections as if they equate to democracy (Opinio Juris). No matter the reason for the West’s apparent willful blindness, Errol Mendes may be right in that there other requisites (ie, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, a media culture of resisting corruption and independent election oversight) in order to be labeled a ‘democracy’.

A Moment to Vent About Hypocrisy

2008-02-05T18:07:00.000-05:00

With the same intensity as I challenge America on its self-importance and self-centredness, I rail against Canadian and European smug hypocrisy. The trouble with putting on airs is that it generally comes back to bite you in a@#!

Last Thursday, I found myself stunned by Canada’s inability to think outside-the-box on poppy eradication, and worse yet, Canada exacerbated the plight of detainees due to our government’s hypocritical stance vis-à-vis the US.

Sadly, this preoccupation with the US does not limit itself to foreign policy (if it ever did). How I tire of asinine comments, such as “Americans won’t vote for an African-American” or for a woman ! And apparently, I’m not alone. Kate Heartfield laments that (Ottawa Citizen):

Such statements have always been cynical and smug, as well as a little puzzling. It's not like the skin colour of a president is something you can get ready for. Maybe citizens are supposed to put on special glasses before looking at Barack Obama. Or, to get serious for a moment, perhaps what's meant is that Americans aren't ready to elect a black president. Strip away the euphemism: Americans are too racist and backwards to elect a black president.

In any case, when Canadians make such judgments now, we show an embarrassing lack of self-awareness. We must not let ourselves forget that the Americans are getting awfully close to making us look like bigots of the most troglodytic variety.

At the moment, there is a very real possibility that either a woman or an African American will be elected as the next American president. Canada has not yet come to this point. Its only female prime minister, Kim Campbell, “didn’t win her job through popular election.” And now Canadians must uncomfortably confront a myth about themselves as somehow being more “progressive” compared to its more racist and backward southern neighbours.

To her credit, Heartfield openly admits a sort of resentment and a perverse desire to see the first female or African American candidate loose necessary for validation:

So I find myself with a strange mixture of emotions: fascination at the suddenness of change south of the border, and bitter bewilderment at what's going on up here.

I find myself taking a twisted kind of comfort in this idea: If a Republican were to win the presidency, at least that would give Canada a little time to catch up.

Today, Daniel Vernet briefly touches upon the leading American candidates’ foreign policies (Le Monde). Vernet notes that all of them believe the US should act as a world leader. But despite their calls for modest means, he still feels compelled to offer this dig:

L'opposition traditionnelle, et simpliste, entre "isolationnistes" et "internationalistes" n'est plus de saison. Aucun candidat ne propose que les Etats-Unis se replient sur eux-mêmes pour se guérir de l'activisme extérieur des dernières années. La prudence est cependant de mise. George W. Bush n'avait-il pas vanté, avant son élection en 2000, les mérites d'une Amérique "modeste" ?

Ironically enough, as the fighting in Chad has worsens, Europe’s meddling in Africa has once again surfaced. In light of Alex de Waal’s background and analysis, one wonders how the French leadership will cope the rather awkward position it now finds itself in. Blake Hounshell writes:

The French, proving once again that tolerance for friendly authoritarians is not an American invention, are backing Déby to the hilt. The trouble, De Waal warns, is that Déby may seize the opportunity to engineer "a massacre of the civilian opposition." If that happens, what will newlywed Nicolas Sarkozy and his bleeding-heart foreign minister[Bernard Kouchner], Doctors Without Borders founder Bernard Kouchner, do about it?

A modest Europe, indeed.

Worse yet, Mike Boyer wonders if some Europeans are sabatoging the mission Afghanistan. The current operation enjoys UN approval and carries with it international obligations. NATO’s deadbeat allies (eg, Germany) will share ‘real blame’ in the event of failure. But the problem goes deeper than impotence or unwillingness. Support for the Taliban by some European diplomats exacerbates the European-North American divide and ultimately undermines the security of the Afghan government (Telegraph).

At this point, a diligent observer should pause to question what (European) interests are being served in the case of failure.

Why Republicans Are OK with Obama?

2008-02-05T18:04:00.000-05:00

Peter Wehner attempts to explain why Republicans are OK (WaPo). Wehner writes:

What is at the core of Obama's appeal?

Part of it is the eloquence and uplift of his speeches, combined with his personal grace and dignity. By all accounts, Obama is a well-grounded, decent, thoughtful man. He comes across, in his person and manner, as nonpartisan. He has an unsurpassed ability to (seemingly) transcend politics. Even when he disagrees with people, he doesn't seem disagreeable. "You know what charm is," Albert Camus wrote in "The Fall," "a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question." Obama has such charm, and its appeal is not restricted to Democrats.

A second reason Republicans appreciate Obama is that he is pitted against a couple, the Clintons, whom many Republicans hold in contempt. Among the effects of the Obama-Clinton race is that it is forcing Democrats to come to grips with the mendacity and ruthlessness of the Clinton machine. Conservatives have long believed that the Clintons are an unprincipled pair who will destroy those who stand between them and power -- whether they are political opponents, women from Bill Clinton's past or independent counsels.

When the Clintons were doing this in the 1990s, it was viewed by many Democrats as perfectly acceptable. Some even applauded them for their brass-knuckle tactics. But now that the Clintons are roughing up an inspiring young man who appears to represent the hope and future of the Democratic Party, the liberal establishment is reacting with outrage. "I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons," writes Jonathan Chait of the New Republic. Many conservatives respond: It's about time.

A third reason for Obama's GOP appeal is that unlike Clinton and especially John Edwards, Obama has a message that, at its core, is about unity and hope rather than division and resentment. He stresses that "out of many we are one." And to his credit, Barack Obama is running a color-blind campaign. "I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina," Obama said in his victory speech last weekend. "I saw South Carolina." That evening, his crowd of supporters chanted as one, "Race doesn't matter." This was an electric moment. Obama's words are in the great tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. Obama, more than any figure in America, can help bind up the racial wounds of America. In addition, for the past eight years, one of the most prominent qualities of the American left has been anger, which has served it and the country very poorly. An Obama primary win would be a move away from the politics of rage.

However, Wehner stills faults Obama for the following:

The one thing that will keep Obama's appeal from translating into widespread support among Republicans is that he is, on almost every issue, a conventional liberal. And while rhetoric and character matter a lot, politics is finally and fundamentally about ideas and philosophy. Whether we're talking about the Iraq war, monitoring terrorist communications, health care, taxes, education, abortion and the courts, the size of government, or almost anything else, Obama embodies the views of the special-interest groups on the left.

As Andrew Sullivan points out, Wehner’s criticism against Obama appears rather disingenuous (WaPo):

I'm unaware that special interest groups have a position on Iraq. Or is Wehner referring to Halliburton and Blackwater? But let's review. If a Democrat ran for office today pledging a massive increase in entitlement spending, a decades-long multi-trillion dollar nation-building project in the Middle East, the biggest increase in discretionary spending since LBJ, a huge increase in the power of the executive branch, a doubling of the federal education budget, a de facto amnesty program for 12 million illegal immigrants, and a cool additional $32 trillion to the country's unfunded liabilities ... would Wehner be saying he is out of bounds for conservatives because he is a special interest group liberal?

Nothing in Obama's policy book comes even close to the massive lurch to the left that Pete Wehner engineered and supported and celebrated when it was done by a Republican president.

Absolutely Horrific !

2008-02-01T19:22:00.001-05:00

There’s no justification for this crime - bombing anyone and everyone, Sunnis, Shia, men, women, children, Iraqi, foreigner (NYT). In what warped sense of reality could anyone call the people responsible “martyrs”?

The Manley Report: Lost in Afghanistan?

2008-01-31T21:56:00.000-05:00

Last week, the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan released its report, a.k.a. the Manley report (Collections Canada). There were no real surprises. In fact, the whole report may strike the casual reader as common sense, something that both the previous Liberal and current Conservative governments should have been done a long time ago. However, in the end, I remain disappointed with the final product.

Predictably, the Panel did not wish to set policy for the relevant government departments and agencies, or pigeonhole Canadian policymakers. Thus, one can easily anticipate the Panel offering fairly general advice. And to the Panel’s credit, it made some clear recommendations, especially in calling for more aggressive diplomacy and in making further involvement after 2009 contingent on our allies (ie, much of Western Europe) living up to their responsibilities. The recommendations are as follows (at pp.37-38):

1. Canada should assert a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position
regarding Afghanistan and the regional players. Specifically, Canada, in concert
with key allies, should press for:
a. Early appointment of a high-level civilian representative of the UN
Secretary-General to ensure greater coherence in the civilian and military
effort in Afghanistan;
b. Early adoption by NATO of a comprehensive political-military plan to
address security concerns and imbalances, especially the need for more
troops to bolster security and expedite training and equipment for the
Afghan National Security Forces;
c. Forceful representations with Afghanistan’s neighbours, in particular with
Pakistan, to reduce the risks posed to regional stability and security by
recent developments in that country; and
d. Concerted efforts by the Afghan government to improve governance by
tackling corruption and ensuring basic services to the Afghan people, and
pursuing some degree of political reconciliation in Afghanistan.

2. Canada should continue with its responsibility for security in Kandahar
beyond February 2009, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on
Afghanistan, including its combat role, but with increasing emphasis on
training the Afghan National Security Forces expeditiously to take lead
responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole. As the
Afghan National Security Forces gain capability, Canada’s combat role should
be significantly reduced.

• This commitment is contingent on the assignment of an additional battle
group (of about 1,000 soldiers) to Kandahar by NATO and/or other allies
before February 2009.
• To better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent,
the Government should also secure medium helicopter lift capacity and
high-performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009.

3. Canada’s contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan
should be revamped giving higher priority than at present to direct, bilateral
project assistance that addresses the immediate, practical needs of the Afghan
people, especially in Kandahar province, as well as longer-term capacitybuilding.

4. The Government should systematically assess the effectiveness of Canadian
contributions and the extent to which the benchmarks and timelines of the
Afghanistan Compact have been met. Future commitments should be based
on those assessments.

5. The Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent
reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada’s role
and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well
as those of the military.

Despite these proposals, the report feels incomplete, failing to address a few key issues with which Canadians are arguably concerned. For example, I’m disappointed that the Panel glossed over two critical questions – poppy eradication and prisoners. The Panel only devoted a single paragraph to each topic.

Opium poppies (at p.15):

The opium trade is a complicating factor in Afghan security, and it is both a result of violent instability and a contributor to it. According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, opium production in 2007 was 34 per cent higher than in 2006. (This increase was partly attributable to weather that favoured poppy crops, and may not indicate a continuing trend.) Fully 90 per cent of the world’s illicit opium supply originates in Afghanistan. Opium profits flow to the Taliban, to criminal elements and to corrupt provincial and central-government officials. The Panel found that different and in some cases contradictory Afghan government and foreign counter-narcotics policies and practices have been working at cross-purposes. Coherent counter-narcotics strategies need to be adopted by all relevant authorities. These approaches must include justice-sector reforms to tighten the prosecution of traffickers. And they must offer effective economic provisions to induce would-be poppy farmers and middlemen to prefer and find alternative lines of work. As one possibility, a limited poppy-formedicine project might be worth pursuing. Any good strategy will take time to yield results.

Prisoners (at p.17):

Canadians have heard and expressed specific concerns about the handling by Afghan officials of prisoners turned over to them by Canadian soldiers. These concerns (shared in other ISAF countries) raise issues currently before Canadian courts. Two questions stand out. First, are detainees treated humanely, as required by treaties and other international law? And second, do ISAF countries retain obligations with regard to the safety and welfare of detainees after their transfer to Afghan custody? Our discussions with Canadian Forces officers in Afghanistan persuaded us that their procedures for handling and transferring detainees conform fully with international standards and with Canada’s own international legal obligations. However, the Panel did not have the opportunity to evaluate Afghan practices. As in other areas of governance, Canada and ISAF partners should continue working to enhance Afghan government capacity and performance in protecting the rights of detainees. The Afghan government must be held accountable for providing prisoners with due process and humane treatment. It must also be held to the terms of its formal agreements with the Canadian and other governments on detainee transfers.

Bluntly put, I’m stupefied at how utterly obtuse nature of some of the current American administration’s policies, and totally unimpressed with the politics of avoidance on the part of the pervious and current Canadian governments.

On the question of poppy eradication, it would seem that the obsession with the ‘war on drugs’ is undermining goodwill in the Afghan mission (WaPo). I’m not sure whether this US policy stems from the administrations ideological trappings or whether it simply amounts to mistaken priorities. And Canada isn’t helping. The Manly report does not tackle the dilemma head-on. Make no mistake. It most certainly is a dilemma, which requires hard choices and creative thinking. And Dan Gardner suggests that the report stems from “inside-the-box thinking” (Ottawa Citizen).

With respect to the issue of prisoners in Afghanistan, both the previous Liberal and current Conservative governments apparently prefer passive aggressive avoidance. Instead of challenging the US on its interrogation practices, Canada opted to add the US to its list of countries that torture, thereby hindering, if not preventing, cooperative detention programs, and putting Canada into a hypocritical farce. As David Basco points out, the solution to the self-created dilemma was to “[s]huffle off detainees to the Afghans and pretend that the treatment [the detainees are] getting is better than they’d get with the Americans” (FP Passport). There’s nothing noble about this two-faced display – pretending that we’re lily-white at home and yet exacerbating the problem.

Such absurdities illustrate the importance of the Panel’s fifth suggestion – frank and constructive dialogue. On this note, I sympathize with several of Jack Cunningham’s thoughts (Whig). There is a deplorable lack of substance to the public debate, both on and off the Hill, even though a majority of Canadians apparently support the Afghan mission in principle. Let’s cut the crap !

On a tangential note, I appreciated Cunningham’s remark about “craven pacifism” – “yes, craven, for pacifism is a contemptible creed rooted in narcissistic concern with the spotlessness of one's own soul, the sufferings of others be damned”. I’m truly tired of the self-righteous rhetoric whether it be clothed in religious, moral or human rights terminology. And although I wish for more humility and pragmatism on Canada’s part, I unfortunately remain deeply pessimistic.

Freethinking 101: Breaking with Orthodoxy

2008-01-31T21:53:00.001-05:00

If the title of this post strikes you as provocative, then I hope it provokes readers to question previously conceived ideas as opposed to knee-jerk diatribes. Shouldn’t so-called freethinkers possess the ability to free themselves of their grandparents’ political orthodoxies in order to rethink a new world-view?

Taylor Owen addressed this issue last fall (OxBlog). Impressed with Leslie Campbell’s NDP credentials and her review of Naomi Klein’s book, The Shock Doctrine, Owen appreciated her challenge “the central thesis of the work” (Literary Review of Canada). Campbell summarizes the basic narrative as follows:

The Friedmanite vision of unfettered capitalism and a “hyper-mobile global economy” is a fundamentally unattractive proposition to most people, particularly the economically vulnerable. Only if the slate is wiped clean somehow and people are in a state of shock with reduced defences can Friedman’s henchmen move in and implement a series of quick and radical economic changes—familiar to many of us as IMF “structural adjustments.” If a large-scale shock materializes—a natural disaster like Katrina, for example—so much the better. If the natural world doesn’t cooperate, something can be invented—the Iraq war is given three chapters. The great institutional players in this game include the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and the aforementioned IMF, backed by Washington’s neo-conservative think tanks. The ultimate goal is to transfer virtually all economic resources and control into private hands, gutting public services and shrinking government.

Klein employs questionable methodology in pursuit of this narrative. As Campbell points out: “The audacity Klein’s undertaking—an attempted rewriting of the economic history of the late 20th and early 21st century—is stunning, and she manages to weave the thread of her argument through dozens of hitherto unconnected events …”. She dismisses Klien’s theory of capitalist conspiracy, as just that – conspiracy.

Obviously, it is unfair to single Klien out for this pitfall. Other authors, such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, have a tendancy to strip events from their historical contexts, impute their own motives ex post facto upon historical actors, give undue weight to seemingly innocuous events, and then string it all together to suit their ideological sympathies. In a general Additional methodological flaws

There are a number of other methodological failings, but for brevity’s sake, I’ll get to the point. The intriguing part about Campbell’s review, as Owen appreciates, is her ability to strike at the very core of the ideological theme:

…[It] is ironic given Klein’s popular status as standard bearer for the developed world’s radically energized youth—The Shock Doctrine ends up sounding profoundly conservative. A hankering for the old days (in Klein’s case, the era of John Maynard Keynes) and suspicion of change are the hallmarks of true conservatism. Reminiscent of the Canadian Tory wag who once quipped that the Magna Carta was “too much, too soon,” Klein’s admiration of Keynes and the “mixed, regulated economy that created the New Deal” can sound quaint and dated. New Deal economics transformed North America, but positive innovations since then, many based on encouraging entrepreneurial wealth creation and liberalizing trade arrangements, deserve more attention. Also, in critiquing selected international economic transitions—most notably Russia, Poland, South Africa and Iraq—Klein occasionally sounds nostalgic for a past that was, for many people, at least as negative as the present.

In another devasting strike, Campbell identifies this bizarre notion that what works in North America and Europe necessarily works in other areas of the world:

Another serious weakness of the book, despite the power and passion of Klein’s writing, is its naive and unquestioning embrace of public ownership and government action. Public control may be fine in Canada and the Scandinavian countries, but in most of the world, where the public sector is just as rife with greed and unaccountable power as the private sphere, it has no claim to virtue.

Such arguments evidences of a deeply Western-centric view, whether it is characterized by dellusions of the West saving the world or of the West as the reason for all the world’s ills.

Sadly, the odd-bedfellows that this school of thought on the left supports undermine its supposed “liberal” theme:

Finally, in perhaps the most serious misanalysis in the book, Klein takes on the question of Lebanon and Hezbollah. Characterizing the Hezbollah-led attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government of Fouad Siniora in late 2006 as “the first national revolt specifically targeting postwar disaster capitalism,” Klein praises the “Islamist party” Hezbollah for their efficiency and generosity. While Hezbollah does play an important and legitimate part in Lebanese society, the group’s role as a Syrian-backed, Iranian-financed private militia accused of indiscriminately targeting civilians with missiles is virtually ignored in Klein’s search for anti-globalization heroes. That Siniora’s democratic government is the weak party in Lebanon, bravely withstanding the onslaught from Hezbollah and its anti-democratic financers to champion a liberal and non-sectarian future for the country, completely escapes Klein’s narrative.

The book winds down with a rather familiar defence of “democratic socialism” (good socialism as practiced by Hugo Chavez) as opposed to “authoritarian Communism” (bad socialism as practiced by Stalin) or social democracy (cheap sell-out of socialism practiced by Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder and their ilk). To those in left-wing circles this is a hoary and tired debate, but Klein resuscitates it as brand new, quoting 1970 memos from Kissinger to Nixon like newfound gems.

I’ve commented many times on this negative-trap in which people define their positions in terms of opposing their so-called adversaries instead of basing their positions on liberal principle.

As perhaps the most devastating blow, Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter argue in their recent book, The Rebel Sell (Chapters), that supposed counterculture may actually be
“part of the problem” (Guardian). Andy Beckett notes in his review:

The Rebel Sell is a brave book. In places it is also unfair, light on evidence and repetitively polemical. But the argument it makes is important and original. Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, both young Canadian academics, think that for nearly half a century critics of capitalism have profoundly misunderstood their enemy. Worse than that, the authors argue, these critics have - sometimes unintentionally, sometimes not - provided modern capitalism with the fuel it runs on.

‘Anti-capitalist’ unwittingly feed ‘the capitalist beast’, because they “have mistakenly seen capitalism as a system that sells conformity rather than individualism”:

To Heath and Potter, the story of capitalism since the 60s is the story of business absorbing so much from the so-called counterculture of that decade and after, and vice versa, that the two effectively merged. By the early 21st century, the counterculture's governing ideas of rebelliousness and "cool" have become the "central ideology" of consumerism. Wherever you find capitalism at its most vigorous - as in the marketing of sportswear and pop music - a "rebel sell" philosophy is at work.

Despite their apparent insight, Beckett sees Heath and Potter as snarky and “too North American” in their assumptions. “American-style capitalism” (whatever that may be) may not be “the only possible capitalism”.

These two examples offer just a taste of what it means to think outside the box. Will small-l-liberals break free from past orthodoxies in order to re-evaluate our surroundings? Such an endeavour would prove valuable in crafting policy proposals to suit today’s realities with a view to the future.

Does Ezra Levant have a point?

2008-01-22T19:57:00.001-05:00

As strange and awkward as it may seem, Ezra Levant may actually have a point with respect to the role of human rights commissions (G&M). Generally, I tend to vehemently disagree with Levant and I often find his manner offensive. Even now, his aggressive rhetoric and posturing overstate his case and distract from the critical issue at hand. Nevertheless, we may wish to explore the larger argument.

Levant and the Western Standard - a title reminiscent of the American conservative paper, the Weekly Standard - republished the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (NP). Consequently, “Syed Soharwardy, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, filed a complaint” and Levant now finds himself under the eye of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

Sadly, although perhaps not unexpectedly, Levant has responded with contentious rhetoric and posturing. His opening remarks to the Alta HRC question the very authority of the commission with hyperbolic allusions to an Orwellian distopia and thought crimes (NP). Levant has even gone so far as to make his complaints personal, referring to Soharwardy as a “radical, Saudi-trained imam who has publicly called for shariah law to be imposed in Canada” and to anti-Semitism in a pitiful attempt at ironic, if not sardonic, humour.

Today, a group of Osgoode law students respond to Levant’s tirade against the Alberta Human Rights Commission (G&M). The four students obviously have an interest in defending such HRC ventures, given their own complaint against Maclean’s magazine. To their credit they mention it in the opening paragraph.

The students mention the benefits of having HRCs. Specifically, they mention their affordability in the face of significant legal costs at trial, and how HRCs play an important role in our civil rights protection by “guarantee[ing]” our human rights against eventualities not covered [under] the existing Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which applies only to state entities.” Both are solid points.

However, their argument then concludes by suggesting “human rights commissions were not a ‘problem’ until the Muslim community decided to pursue the right to respond to publications”. Essentially, the students allege a double standard when it comes to Muslims. In their words, “[t]he ‘problem’ as some choose to see it – is that the Muslim community in Canada is actually using them for their intended purposes.”

If their accusation is directed toward Levant, then perhaps his personal attack on Soharwardy merit such a response. But it remains unclear as to whom the students direct their allegation and on what basis.

The students are not alone in their criticism. Yesterday, Gary Wise scolded Levant’s excessive behaviour, wielding the Law Society of Alberta Code of Professional Conduct (Rules 3, 8 & 9) and noting the bad taste in which Levant referred to “criminal vandalism against [an] Edmonton synagogue”. He also stresses the importance of multiculturalism and tolerance in Canadian society, and attempts to distinguish the complaint against Levant and that against Mark Steyn of Maclean’s magazine, which he characterizes as “frivolous”. The key, Wise contends, is intent, and in this case, the intent to offend, as Levant’s repeated republication of the cartoons suggests.

This distinction strikes me as rather muddled. First, is Wise referring to the initial republication of the cartoons? Or does he mean Levant’s repeated republications, seemingly out of spite? Second, the intent test, as Wise articulates it, appears to mistakenly focus on the intent to offend sensibilities as opposed to intimidation, discrimination and inciting hate or violence.

In my opinion, we’ve all lost sight of the critical issue – the role that HRCs should play in our society. Are HRCs becoming vehicles for censorship? Is this appropriate? And does this role serve the purpose for which they were created? The issues deserve serious consideration regardless of the messenger.

Although I do not see it as the central issue, I must stress tolerance, but in a different manner than Wise. In a tolerant and multicultural society, we must tolerate even intolerant individuals. Freedom does not come free, and such tolerance is part of the price for individual liberties.

The Manley Report Is In

2008-01-22T19:23:00.000-05:00

The Globe & Mail reports that Manely report recommends extending the “Canadian military mission in southern Afghanistan” contingent “on two conditions” – “additional equipment and more support from other countries.” Additionally, the panel suggests “gradually refocusing the mission on reconstruction, training and diplomacy rather than combat.”

The actual report (Collections Canada).

Mexico takes on organized crime

2008-01-22T19:22:00.001-05:00

President Felipe Calderón cracks down on organized crime rings in the Gulf, known as the Zetas (NYT). However, federal forces have met considerable resistance as “midlevel mobsters and hit men” prefer to fight rather than surrender, with the aide of corrupt local police who tip them off. The federal police and military face an uphill battle. The skirmishes, such as last Thursday’s in Tijuana, demonstrate the brutality of these cartels, slaughtering kidnapping victims and ambushing the families of police officers in their homes (NYT).

Chávez’s Farm

2008-01-21T18:40:00.000-05:00

Hugo Chávez threatens to nationalize farms in Venezuela. If ever there was a bad idea ! When, in recent history, has this worked ? Or perhaps better put, when has this type of overly ambitious and utopian policy not resulted in disaster ?. Communal farms do not necessarily produce more. Ever heard of the Great Leap Backward ? And dispossessing skilled farmers of their land, even in the name of social justice, ignores very real economic necessities. Are you familiar with Mugabe’s land reform?

Humble Ambitions

2008-01-21T18:38:00.000-05:00

An International Herald Tribune editorial discusses the twin Zen lessons of Charlie Wilson’s War. The first derives from “the real-life Wilson, who lamented that American did the right thing in Afghanistan but messed up ‘the endgame.” The second, “more philosophical message” relates to “American’s role in the world” and “the need for humility in those who make America’s moves on a global chessboard”. The IHT editors view the movie’s story of the Zen master, told by Philip Seymour Hoffman, as “Aaron Sorkin’s way of warning against triumphalism.” The paper then relates this second lesson to the Bush administrations misadventure in the Middle East:

In a similar vein, Bush should have foreseen that the invasion and occupation of Iraq could become a strategic gift to Iran; that his pledge to foster democracy in the Muslim world while backing Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan would make America look hypocritical; or that his reluctance to seek a UN Security Council resolution to halt Israel's bombing of Lebanon in the summer of 2006 would inflame anti-American feelings in the Arab world. These are the sorts of unintended consequences a Zen master would expect - and a president must try to anticipate.

Undoubtedly, the editors make a sound point with respect to America acting cautiously and wisely in world affairs. The paper’s call for humility reminds me, to some extent, of Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman in light of their recent book, Ethical Realism (Amazon). In an interview, Lieven and Hulsman elaborate on their ‘alternative’ foreign policy, whose influences derive from Reinhold Niebuhr, Hans Morgenthau, George Kennan, Harry S. Truman and Dwight Eisenhower.

Notionally, it is difficult to disagree with the need for a cautious and humble approach to foreign policy. The key to Lieven and Hulsman, in my view, is their desire to steer clear of uptopian visions regarding the employment of unfettered American power. I would add that their warnings equally apply to utopian ideas of an American retreat from the global leadership role in which the country now finds itself, and that simple neglect may permit serious dangers to foster. It is important not to forget that harm, and indeed unforeseen adverse consequences, may arise from both action and inaction – eg, Iraq (2003-present) and Afghanistan (from the Soviet withdrawal-9/11).

Finally, I continually recall Lieven’s and Hulsman’s observation that policy makers must be prepared to make ‘hard choices’. I understood this to mean making difficult decisions with your eyes open and being straight-forward about it. For example, politicians should publicly acknowledge the potential humanitarian costs of both employing the use of force and for failing to deploy it. And society should reciprocate this acknowledgement too. Perfection remains an illusion.

Problems in Canada’s detainee policy

2008-01-21T18:34:00.000-05:00

Two news developments came to my attention regarding Canada’s detainee policies.

First, Jurist reports that foreign affairs minister Maxim Bernier indicated that the ministry may remove the US from its list of countries, which “employ interrogation methods that amount to torture and where prisoners risk being tortured”. Bernier “requests” a training manual review: (Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

I regret the embarrassment caused by the public disclosure of the manual used in the department’s torture awareness training. It contains a list that wrongly includes some of our closest allies. I have directed that the manual be reviewed and rewritten. The manual is neither a policy document nor a statement of policy. As such, it does not convey the Government’s views or positions.

Apparently, the manual was “mistakenly” handed over to Amnesty International Canada in a case filed for judicial review of Canada’s detainee policy for the Afghanistan mission (Jurist).

Incidentally, Tobias Thienel examines two competing strands of thought as to whether a difference exists between torture and ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CIDT)’ (Opinio juris).

One strand of opinion holds that the difference is one of degree; the victim of torture has to suffer more than the victim of CIDT; the ECtHR is probably the most prominent actor to have taken this position: see Ireland v. United Kingdom, para. 167.

The competing test looks at the purpose of the ill-treatment: if serious suffering is inflicted for one of the purposes listed in Article 1 of Torture Convention, it falls to be qualified as torture. If not, it is CIDT. On this view, torture and CIDT have the same threshold test on the severity of suffering; the difference is in the context of the treatment.

Thienel finds the second strand “more convincing” and believes that it reconciles the question admissibility into evidence with the prohibition of CIDT.

Second, an American federal court issued a life sentence to a Canadian for a bomb plot, but a question remains as to whether Mohamed Mansour Jabarah’s right against self-incirmination under the Charter had been violated (Jurist). Jabarah plead “guilty to planning attacks on US and Israeli embassies in Singapore and the Philippines” (CBC). CBC further reports that Al-Qaeda seeks young recruits in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and ‘brainwashes’ them.

On a tangental note, I wonder how much we can learn from Jabarah’s experience in so far as his recruitment and in divising further means of combatting al-Qaeda’s ideological appeal.

Of Interest

2008-01-21T18:29:00.000-05:00

As is often the case with blogging, time passes too quickly before one has the opportunity to write about current events. Over the course of the past few days, the following pieces caught my eye.

1) Osama's son wants to be an "ambassador for peace". (Hat tip FP Passport)

2) The CIA believes that it knows who killed Bhutto (WaPo).

3) Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security advisor, calls for an Iraqi federalist state as opposed partitioning the country (WaPo). Al-Rubaie suggests dividing the country into five units, thus giving to the three main groups (Kurds, Arab Shia and Arab Sunnis) control over and a stake in their respective destinies. Moreover, he proposes giving the Kurds "a special constitutional status as a recognized society and cutlure with a unique identity (similar to the Canadian provence of Quebec)."

Interesting proposal, but the "special status" suggestion may inadvertently open pandora's box to the claims of other groups, and may even have the opposite effect, further strengthening the desire for a separate Kurdish state.

4) Professor Marc Lynch notes an agreement between France and the UAE to establish “the first non-American military base in the Gulf since the British pulled out in 1971”. Regardless of whether this move indicates ‘neo-Guallist’ ambitions, Matthew Yglesias wonders if it will improve Trans-Atlantic tensions:

I'd put that in my "it's a good thing" file. The United States doesn't have any fundamental clashes of interest with France or other Western European countries. But the current nature of our relationship with them is dysfunctional. We try to play a hegemonic role in parts of the world that they take an interest in. Thus, we wind up acting unilaterally. They get upset with our policies and with our hegemony. Then we whine back that we're doing it, in a sense, for their own good and they're free-riding on our costly military posture. Then they retort that we're doing it all for our own reasons.

At the end of the day, everyone's right. It'll be a healthy US-European relationship if the Europeans both do more and, in exchange, wind up getting more say.

“The Myth of the War Economy”

2008-01-14T18:09:00.000-05:00

I work along side economists on a daily basis, and I truly appreciate their discipline, which often challenges my preconceived ideas. One of the most enduring myths is how war benefits the economy, which furthers the notion that capitalism feeds off of conflict. I even remember learning in school that WWII ended the Great Depression and brought the economy back to life.

However, this lesson is terribly inaccurate as Joseph Stiglitz (Wiki), former member of the Clinton administration, explains in this article, prior to the Iraq invasion (Guardian). Indeed, reading Mike Moffatt’s article with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight lends more credence to the claim that war benefits the economy amounts to a myth (about.com). Perhaps today’s apprehension over the state of the American economy results from the Iraq war. There sure are a lot of economically viable options on which the American government could have spent $1.2 trillion (FP Passport).

The broken window fallacy, on which the myth is based, derives from the difficulty in identifying economic loss. Nevertheless, Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz attempt to do just that with respect to the Iraq war (Working Paper 12054).

It appears that economic theory does not square with certain ideologies (or so-called documentaries, IMDB). Tough luck Chomsky, Jarecki, et al.

Iraq’s re-Baathification Law

2008-01-14T18:07:00.000-05:00

The Iraqi Parliament recently passed a law, which apparently attempts to reverse the former American de-Baathification barring many Iraqi civil servants from government (NYT). However, there’s too much room for interpretation (NYT). For example, Juan Cole believes that “the law is not actually, as written, likely to be good for sectarian reconciliation.” (Hat tip FP Passport). Jurist has more.

If any readers know where I can find a copy of the legislation in English, please leave a comment below.

Arab and Muslim Stereotypes

2008-01-14T18:04:00.000-05:00

Mazen Chouaib criticizes the Arab and Muslim stereotypes, or as he put it, the “made-for TV Arab” (Ottawa Citizen). However, I think that Chaouaib is too kind. He notes that Canadians are “certainly not immune to subtle projections of biases, prejudice and stereotyping that perpetuate racism”, but attempts to soften the blow by arguing that “Canadians, for the most part, are not consciously anti-Arab”, as if that somehow makes it a little bit better.

Preconditions for Democracy

2008-01-14T18:03:00.000-05:00

The G.W. Bush administration has pushed democracy as part of its foreign policy mantra. However, it’s not clear how the administration defines democracy. Is it free and fair elections? If so, then the administration seems to question its own faith from time to time, namely where the results of an election bring an Islamic party to power.

Presently, Pakistan and Kenya find themselves in rather uncomfortable positions in their experiences with democracy. Far from a fix-all elixir, democracy may prove a destabilizing force. In response, Errol P. Mendes suggests “preconditions for democracy to triumph in fractured societies” in an intriguing article last Friday (Ottawa Citizen):
1) the rule of law,
2) an independent judiciary,
3) media with “a culture that begins to ferociously resist corruption”, and
4) “the establishment of truly independent organs of government, such as independent election commissions that can ensure fair democratic processes”.

Compare Records: Clinton & Obama

2008-01-14T18:01:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton asks voters to compare her record with Obama’s (TPM):

"He was a part-time state senator for a few years, and then he came to the Senate and immediately started running for president," she said. "And that's his prerogative. That's his right. But I think it is important to compare and contrast our records." (à la Las Vegas Review Journal)

The trouble is, as Matthew Yglesias points out, Clinton does not necessarily come out on top:

Clinton's record turns out to be really thin -- she's only been a Senator since 2001 and hasn't authored any major legislation. Barack Obama's been in the US Senate even more briefly, but did write some significant bills as an Illinois Senator, and has served more years in elected office than has Clinton. Like everyone else, I can't shake the sense that Clinton's years of first ladying amount to some kind of substantial experience, but they don't really amount to a record.

Dirty Tricks?

2008-01-14T17:58:00.000-05:00

Ah, the subtly of the Clinton machine. Chris Suellentrop of the New York Times echoes John Marshall’s concerns regarding the low tactics taken by Clinton supporters against Obama (TPM):

We seem to be at the point where there are now two credible possibilities. One is that the Clinton campaign is intentionally pursuing a strategy of using surrogates to hit Obama with racially-charged language or with charges that while not directly tied to race nonetheless play to stereotypes about black men. The other possibility is that the Clinton campaign is extraordinarily unlucky and continually finds its surrogates stumbling on to racially-charged or denigrating language when discussing Obama.

As one TPM reader points out, Clinton supporters are attempting to bait Obama into responding in way, which fits a negative stereotype of African American men. And it’s truly ironic when African American leaders participate in such a strategy (TPM). William Jelani Cobb offers his thoughts on why some African American ‘leaders’ appear ‘lukewarm’ to Obama’s candidacy (WaPo):

That's because, positioned as he is between the black boomers and the hip-hop generation, Obama is indebted, but not beholden, to the civil rights gerontocracy. A successful Obama candidacy would simultaneously represent a huge leap forward for black America and the death knell for the reign of the civil rights-era leadership -- or at least the illusion of their influence.

Cobb makes a key point – “There is far more to politics – even racial politics – than skin color.”

Aside from identity politics, Clinton now seems to be contradicting recent history with her remarks about her position on Iraq compared to Obama’s. Even those who see room for improvement with Obama’s foreign policy question Clinton’s rhetorical strategy (Matthew Yglesias). If the facts are inconvenient, then spin, spin, spin.

Think Outside the Box

2008-01-09T18:11:00.001-05:00

I’m still not quite sure what I think about Daniel Koffler’s latest op-ed (Guardian). However, I believe it deserves attention and consideration. Koffler believes that the pundits are wrong on two major points regarding the Democratic primary. First, the three Democratic frontrunners are not all alike. And second, Barack Obama’s campaign has far more substance than the media presently realizes.

In a nutshell, Koffler argues that Obama differs philosophically from both Clinton and Edwards. The candidate does not view political issues through the same lens as they do, much less feel trapped by what Koffler calls “old-style liberal orthodoxy”. At least three broad issues illustrate his point: (1) health care, (2) immigration and (3) free trade. According to Koffler, Obama’s policy outlook has both liberal and libertarian trends. For example, he apparently sees health care as a cost reduction issue, where the market can be harnessed as a means toward social justice as opposed to an obstacle to it.

I’d recommend reading the piece in full. My paragraph summary does not do it justice.

Bluntly put, I like the novelty of this op-ed, even if I remain somewhat hesitant about its accuracy. I appreciate Koffler’s ability to think outside the box. He does not attempt to place Obama into a pre-existing political category based on already established factors. Rather, he attempts to examine Obama’s political outlook de novo without the political prims of the baby-boomer generation.

High School Punditry

2008-01-09T18:08:00.000-05:00

I feel stupider after reading, listening to and watching much of the political commentary from pundits covering the American primaries. Undoubtedly, the job entails a lot of guesswork, but analyses should nevertheless rely on experience, instinct and (where possible) some objective measure. But a brief survey of recent opinion gives me the impression that those following the primaries have reverted back to their high school days. It seems that a limited number of issues, assessments, guesses, or whatever, are disseminated, countered, re-packaged, spun and countered again. The pundits all seem to follow the cool kids with respect to the topics discussed, and the mode of analysis (ie, conjecture). At times, much of the political commentary amounts to little more than group gossip.

Survey:

Apparently, pundits continue with the same measures of ‘electability’, including the lowest common denominators among us.

Experience

1. Robert Farmer, who does not hide his ties to the Clintons, believes that Hillary Clinton will be the more electable candidate due to her apparent “experience” (WaPo). Farmer acknowledges his continual affinity for Obama, but opts to switch course and support Clinton. As I understood him, the gist of his op-ed is as follows:

I have told those fundraisers whom I led to Obama that being able to see important changes and acknowledge electability is more important to my political ethics than consistency in the face of changing facts.

I’m curious how he defines experience, and more importantly measures it, thus allowing him to ascertain whether a candidate is “vetted”. Does he count time by the side of one’s spouse? Does he consider the total number of years in elected office?

Race

2. Although Farmer may see Obama as less ‘electable’ than Clinton, because she’s been “vetted”, the cynics see Obama’s race as a major drawback to electability. Anne Applebaum pauses at the number of foreigners asking her “Will Americans vote for a black man for president?” (WaPo). Applebaum admits that she does not have a well-prepared answer, and offers a taste of one of her encounters:

Surely, I told one British acquaintance, the Iowa caucus vote is evidence that at least some Americans will vote for a black man for president. He disagreed, citing the atypicality of Iowa. After all, "there are plenty of states where you hardly see any black faces at all." Alas, he seemed to have forgotten -- or perhaps never knew -- that Iowa is one of them.

Perhaps the trend exists north of the US too, where at least one Canadian blogger believes that Obama’s skin pigmentation will hurt his candidacy.

Ironically, Applebaum sees Obama’s “dark skin” as an advantage. She believes that it furthers the candidate’s message of change, and distances him from American political dynasties with which Americans have grown disillusioned. And the fact that the current President is the latest member of the Bush dynasty should not be overlooked.

While “striding past the cynics”, Bob Herbert thinks that Obama’s popularity reflects how American society has changed. Herbert observes that: (NYT)

…something new, not just in American politics but in the society as a whole, is undoubtedly emerging. The change is already under way. It would not have been possible to imagine even just a few years ago that a black man could come out of Iowa (and maybe New Hampshire) leading the charge toward the Democratic presidential nomination.

There are plenty of racists still lurking among us, and they’ll no doubt be agitated by the Obama phenomenon. But it would be hard for anyone to make the case that the U.S. as whole has not become less racially prejudiced over the past several years. Implicit in Mr. Obama’s message of healing and reconciliation is the promise of further progress on this once intractable front.

I’m left just curious about other manifestations of spinning race, and am left with a couple burning questions:
• When will we realize that there is no such thing as “the black vote”? African Americans vote the same as other Americans – the results are a mixed bag (NYT).
• When will we let go of the attempts rob African Americans of the legitimacy of their achievements? What is this silliness of Obama not being black? Is he somehow immune to the sting of racism and other hurdles faced by African Americans? And what is this perverse attempt to taint both his victories (eg, “white guilt” and “white self-congratulations”) and set backs (eg, the “Bradley effect”).
• And noting Applebaum’s op-ed and my personal experience, why do some people have such trouble believing that Americans will vote for a black president? Is racism somehow monolithic? Is it a stereotype based on what may have been true 20-30 years ago? Richard Thompson Ford attempts to answer these questions (Slate).

Gender

3. Similar to the cynics on race, Gloria Steinem sees gender as a major issue of electability. In Steinem’s words (NYT):

Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

She fears that while the public sees Obama as unifying due to his race, it sees Clinton as divisive due to her gender.

Like the question of Obama’s skin colour, I’m perplexed by the political discourse surrounding Clinton’s gender.
• Why does the media make such a huge deal out of Hillary choking up while responding to a question? Are women supposed to show more or less emotion than a man?

Oratory

4. E.J. Dionne Jr. contrasts Clinton’s wonkiness with Obama’s inspiring oratory (WaPo; Also available at TNR). Obama’s gift highlights the irony of one of Clinton’s recent statements – “You campaign in poetry, and govern in prose.” Dionne recalls yesteryear’s political branding with which the current experience v. change narrative superficially resembles (eg, Nixon v. Kennedy and Humphrey in ’68).

Indeed, at the risk of stating the obvious, the oratory style between Clinton and Obama differ like day and night. Rachael Larimore dissects their speeches last night in New Hampshire (The XX Factor). She comes to the conclusion that Hillary is the “me candidate”, whereas Obama is the “we candidate” based on the following: “Obama uttered the word I three times—including when he said "I want to congratulate" Hillary. Mrs. Clinton? More than 20 times.”

Cynicism

5. Jonah Goldberg believes that American voters are really just narcissistic (LAT). He writes:

What Americans really want when they look into a politician's eyes is to see their own images reflected back, like in Narcissus' pool. The presidency in particular has become the highest ground in the culture war. Americans want a candidate who validates them personally. "I'm voting for him because he's a hunter like me." "I'm backing voting for her because she's a woman too." "I'm for that guy because he's angry like me." Such sentiments have colored the presidential contest for so long, they've saturated it like stain into wood.

Does this op-ed strike anyone else as being vacuous? Irony.

Aside from the cynicism directed at American voters, the editors of TNR direct it toward the Democratic candidates. They wonder if the Democratic frontrunners should really just get together for a group hug and sing “Kumbaya ‘08”. Aside from the superficial fiery rhetoric, Edwards, Clinton and Obama apparently only differ in terms of degrees, as they “are bunched in the same spot along the ideological spectrum”. The Editors contend that health care remains the only real point of disagreement.

Charlie Wilson’s War

2008-01-07T23:05:00.000-05:00

I saw Charlie Wilson’s War yesterday afternoon (IMDB, trailer available). Quite simply, I’d recommend it, and not just to the political junkies.

It’s about Charlie Wilson, a Democrat for Texas’ 2nd Congressional District in the House of Representatives, who helps to arm and fund the mujahedeen fighting the invading Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Wilson is aided by Joanne Herring, who is a right-wing, Bible thumping, heiress from Houston, and Gust Avrakotos, a smart-mouthed, hard-hitting CIA agent.

Mike Nichols directed the film, but Aaron Sorkin’s gritty and sarcastic whit takes centre stage in this ironic comedy. The movie hits viewers with a multitude of humorous juxtapositions. For example, Wilson, an unapologetic womanizer and heavy drinker, meets with President of Pakistan, and later remarks to his assistant how it felt to have a man, who hung his predecessor after a military coup, tell him that he had many character flaws. And the lines in this movie are as funny as they are poignant.

Prior to seeing the film, I read Christopher Orr’s review (TNR), and found it fairly accurate. However, I wonder if I enjoyed it a bit more than Orr. I evidently have the luxury of being impressed; I’m not a film critic.

Pundits, ideologues and hacks may take this movie and spin it as validation of their world-view. Hardened right-wing partisans may see this as yet another Hollywood attack (Think Progress), whereas other Republicans may seek to identify the film’s ideals with their ideological tendencies. For example, everyone’s favorite neoconservative, Max Boot, attempts to usurp idealist intervention, in general, as a uniquely neoconservative quality (Contentions).

With respect to the political left, I agree with
Marty Peretz in that “its not a feel-good liberal track. Or tract.” (The Spine) The end of the film uncomfortably challenges the “blowback” narrative in common parlance regarding 9/11, connoting a tone of “just deserts” (contrary to the actual definition, which refers to unforeseen or unintended consequences (M-W)). Neglect as opposed to intervention may or may not be part of the reason for today’s threat. The movie concludes with a quote from the real Wilson: “Those things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world. And then we fucked up the endgame.”

On a superficial level, the Cold War backdrop to Charlie Wilson’s War allows for unabashed patriotism and a simplistic us v. them mentality, where the Americans are the good guys and the Soviets are the bad guys. However, there’s seemingly more to it than that. Juxtaposition and irony underlie the storyline suggesting that a nuanced outlook is in order. Indeed, Avrakotos’ (the CIA agent) story of a Zen master on the day of the Soviet withdrawal implies such a view.

Populist Prejudice, Edwards’ Style

2008-01-04T19:29:00.000-05:00

It should be no surprise the John Edwards’ populist appeals may serve as an effective political energizer, but they do not accurately reflect reality. Michael Cohen takes issue with what he considers a “demagogic and somewhat dishonest populist campaign” (Democracy Arsenal). Cohen offers two examples as evidence. First, he notes the complete inaccuracy of Edwards’ accusation that Wednesday’s oil price spike resulted from ‘corporate greed’. Second, he highlights Edwards’ reductive and incomplete answer to American health care problems.

Frankly, I agree with Cohen on a couple key points. “To reduce such serious public policy issues to us v. them arguments is … dishonest and divisive.” Moreover, I, too, am tired of politicians exploiting public anger and fear in pursuit of their ambitions. If it’s not the bogeyman of a Muslim extremist, then it’s the specter of a conspiring corporate elite.

Stupid Legal Arguments From the Bush Admin

2008-01-04T19:26:00.000-05:00

Some of the legal opinions put forward by the Bush administration boggle the mind. Dahlia Lithwick puts together a list of what she believes are the “dumbest legal arguments of the year” (Slate):

10. The NSA's eavesdropping was limited in scope.
9. Scooter Libby's sentence was commuted because it was excessive.
8. The vice president's office is not a part of the executive branch.
7. The Guantanamo Bay detainees enjoy more legal rights than any prisoners of war in history.
6. Water-boarding may not be torture. [Incidentally, I came across this bizarre story in which a man waterboards himself to see if it really is torture (FP Passport).]
5. Everyone who has ever spoken to the president about anything is barred from congressional testimony by executive privilege.
4. Nine U.S. attorneys were fired by nobody, but for good reason.
3. Alberto Gonzales. [Apparently, Gonzles gets his own category for being “the lying-est attorney general in recent history.”]
2. State secrets.
1. The United States does not torture.

Any favorites?

Hope in the New Year

2008-01-04T18:10:00.000-05:00

Call me dorky, but I cheerfully watched Barack Obama’s campaign of ‘Hope’ win over Iowa’s Democratic caucuses last night on CNN. I readily admit that Obama’s my preferred candidate. And while I recognize that both he and his policies are not perfect (as every candidate has shortcomings), I hope that Iowa foreshadows how other Democrats will vote elsewhere.

Over the course of last night’s events, two stories stuck out in my mind.

First, the Dems enjoyed an amazing turnout. According to the Washington Post, entrance polls indicated that 57 % attended for the first time. As good news for Obama, 4 out of 10 newcomers favored him.

Second, Iowa lends considerable credence to the generation battle argument permeating much of the political commentary that I’ve come across in the past couple months:

Obama won overwhelmingly among young voters, who constituted about a fifth of caucus participants, winning 57 percent of those younger than 30. He also won among voters 30 to 44 and split with Edwards and Clinton among those 45 to 60. Clinton won those voters older than 60.

As a general observation, watching CNN’s coverage left the impression that Clinton did not make for a good second-choice candidate. Edwards and Obama appeared to take most second votes, especially Edwards.

Upon reflection of the coverage, it’s difficult not to notice how the media really latched onto the theme of experience versus change. With little doubt, the nature of this tagline remains incomplete. For example, one must assume that the media and pundits alike take Hillary’s role as First Lady into account when implying that she possesses considerably more experience than Barack. Moreover, experience at the state level goes largely unrecognized. In response, Charles Peters draws attention to Obama’s experience in Illinois (WaPo). There, Obama demonstrated tremendous skill in successfully fighting for a number of important pieces of legislation, including the videotaping of police interrogations, campaign finance and “the state’s first earned-income tax credit”. Peters believes that Obama’s display reflects his ability to work through complex issues and to persuade people to rise above what divides them.

In the end, however, a healthy dose of skepticism should accompany last night’s results, which may or may not provide an indication of what’s to come. Iowa, with all due respect, obviously falls spectacularly short of representing America’s voters as a whole. And one may legitimately question whether the two major political parties should kick “the Iowa-New Hampshire habit” altogether (NYT).

Obama's Victory Speech: (gave me goose bumbs)

Happy New Year | Bonne année

2008-01-04T18:07:00.001-05:00

I enjoyed my travels over the holidays, but it feels good to be home.

The Bear's Pride

2007-12-19T22:56:00.000-05:00

Vladimir Putin, is Time magazine’s “person of the year” 2007. Adi Ignatius provides a first person account of what it’s like to meet the Russian President face-to-face – cold, aloof, disciplined, “sardonic but humorless” and always in charge. To this end, Ignatius offers several Putin jokes, finding Russian political jokes to be “partly a coping mechanism, partly a glimpse into the Russian soul.”

Putin Jokes

Hard-liner:

Stalin's ghost appears to Putin in a dream, and Putin asks for him help running the country. Stalin says, "Round up and shoot all the democrats, and then paint the inside of the Kremlin blue." "Why blue?" Putin asks. "Ha!" says Stalin. "I knew you wouldn't ask me about the first part."

Loyalty:

Putin goes to a restaurant with Medvedev and orders a steak. The waiter asks, "And what about the vegetable?" Putin answers, "The vegetable will have steak too."

Don’t-mess-with-me Persona:

Putin and Bush are fishing on the Volga River. After half an hour Bush complains, "Vladimir, I'm getting bitten like crazy by mosquitoes, but I haven't seen a single one bothering you." Putin: "They know better than that."

Thoughts

Despite facile allusions to Stalin and the Tsars, Putin has not committed any purges and he enjoys the legitimacy of public support. However, Russia’s president has garnered more control and squashed those that stand in the way of his vision for the country. Putin seeks to establish Russia’s place in the world and to restore a sense of pride to its people. And although some grow obscenely rich, the living standard for the majority of Russians continues to rise as the economy grows around 7% per year, encouraging hope. Obviously, the ends do not justify the means, but realizing these factors should prove valuable in Russo-Western relations.

For example, we should not underestimate pride as a motivating factor. Two of Ignatius’ anecdotes suggest its significance. First, when asked about American interference in Russian affairs, Ignatius notes:

…he wants Russia and America to be partners but feels the U.S. treats Russia like the uninvited guest at a party. "We want to be a friend of America," he says. "Sometimes we get the impression that America does not need friends" but only "auxiliary subjects to command."

Second, Ignatius observes the only time Putin softens during the rare 3 ½ hour interview with the foreign press:

Putin tells us how, at an apec dinner at which he was feeling somewhat lost, Clinton crossed the room past other world leaders and leaned down to talk to him. "Volodya," Clinton said, using the familiar form of the name Vladimir, "I suggest we walk out together from this room." Putin rose to his feet, and the two men strolled out together. "Everyone applauded," Putin recalls. "I will remember that forever." It was Putin's only sign of softness during the 3 1⁄2 hours we spoke.

Essentially, ego matters, whether national or personal. Combining warnings with strokes of ego should play a role in Russo-Western relations. Moreover, as a matter of pride, it would be a mistake to think that relations could continue on Western terms as they did under Yeltsin.

Chávez Dissuaded?

2007-12-17T20:22:00.000-05:00

Last week, Daniel Drezner wondered if his “nice words” for Hugo Chávez came too early. Jorge Castaneda (the former foreign minister of Mexico) questioned Chávez’ initial willingness to accept the results of his failed president-for-life bid (Newsweek). According to a “confirmed” intel source and El Nacional, the military “dissuaded” the Venezuelan President from tampering with the results (TNR). Now Castaneda ponders Chávez’ increasingly erratic behaviour, fearing that he may ramp up his chavismo efforts, and indulging in the notion that chavistas may wish to pursue their agenda without Chávez.

Obviously, Castaneda shares no love for Chávez, especially given the Venezuelan President’s belligerent name-calling directed at a number of countries and individuals (basically anyone who questions him). And it would be nice to have more than two sources, one of which is confidential. However, it would be a mistake to dismiss Castaneda.

Western Chávez sympathizers may do well to ‘reconsider’ their former support (eg, Pilger et al). But who am I kidding? It’s all about the oil, American intervention and material self-interest. (Mocking this ideology is too easy.)

Of Interest

2007-12-15T00:22:00.000-05:00

1) Thomas Barnett gives a whopping smack down on Alasdair Roberts’ recent article in FP, The War We Deserve. Barnett begins: “A terrible article, possibly the worst cover story I've read this year.” And he captures the crux of Roberts’ argument with the following: “Because we reject national-scale sacrifice, we bungle the war.”

Money quotes: (a) “Beware this bullshit argument.” And (b) “It comes off as one big ass-covering exercise for neocon impetence…”

Ha. I barely remember getting through a few paragraphs of the article, when the issue first came out, and then skipping it. I guess my BS detector worked that day. But beware, it’s sometimes out of order without my knowledge. Damn thing.

For the record: Barnett's analysis might have been better if he deconstructed Roberts' argument more instead of mocking it. But the mocking is much more funny.

2) Spinning the NIE:

Henry Kissinger finds problematic issues with the NIE re Iran’s nuclear program (WaPo). Kissinger concludes that the “Intelligence personnel need to return to their traditional anonymity” and that “Policymakers and Congress should once again assume responsibility for their judgments without involving intelligence in their public justifications.” Interestingly, he admits that the intel community has “gone through a rough period”, facing accusations of “promoting institutional policy biases”, and that the “White House has been accused of politicizing intelligence.”

I’m curious how Kissinger envisions ‘de-politicizing’ these intel estimates.

Mike Boyer harshly criticizes (perhaps deservedly) Sen. John Ensign’s (R-NV) plan to create a panel of politicians to ‘de-politicize’ the NIE (FP Passport). Don’t worry. You read that right.

Perhaps one could remind civil servants of their professional duty to distance themselves from the political fray and to keep their assessments as objective as possible. Or perhaps the executive could merely keep these estimates from being made public (if possible under American law).

Either way, I lean toward Boyer’s point – that the NIEs are just educated “guesses”. And they are, indeed, “notoriously flawed”. The list of bloopers is longer than one would like to admit (WaPo).

3) Matthew Yglesias on the differences among foreign policy advisors to:

Clinton and Obama:

Neither candidate has really tried to open up a broad doctrinal argument, but within the wonk world, in short, there's a significant divide that's reflected in the Clinton versus Obama race. And while this was most notably operationalized over the Iraq question, it reflects some broader differences -- Obama people are more likely to value international law, strategic restraint, and a narrow focus on al-Qaeda whereas Clinton people are more likely to take a pragmatic/instrumental view of international institutions, worry that nothing will happen without American leadership, and to have more sympathy for the Bushian idea that you need broad confrontation with rogue regimes. What's more, you can see this reflected in the differences between the campaigns to some extent in things like Obama's promise to try for a "grand bargain" with Iran and a recommitment of the United States to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide versus Clinton's tendency to gesture in those directions much more modestly.

And Edwards:

Two people in Edwards' circle whose work I am familiar with are Michael Signer and Derek Chollet whose views I've disagreed with in the past and who -- combined with Edwards' very hawkish positioning in 2004 -- made me kind of skeptical of Edwards' foreign policy at the get-go. Now, either they've changed their minds since then, or else I misunderstood what they were saying previously, or else Edwards is listening to someone else, because he's eventually rolled out a foreign policy agenda that seems great. On every point where he's said something different from the competition -- mostly notably on the question of a "war on terror" -- he's differentiated himself in a good way.

Canada’s Kosovo Problem, Part 2

2007-12-12T18:03:00.001-05:00

Today, Embassy magazine’s editorial suggests that Canada will not readily recognize Kosovo independence if the province does so unilaterally. The editorial draws an awkward, if not unworkable, parallel between Canada and Georgia, based soley on this anticipated position. The reason for Canada’s reluctance, the magazine argues is “complex”:

Remember the Clarity Act enacted by former prime minister Jean Chrétien in response to the near-defeat of federalism in Quebec's 1995 referendum? This legislation proclaims that a pro-separation majority in any future referendum would not give a Parti Québécois government the right to declare independence unilaterally.

Instead, and as confirmed by the Supreme Court, any separation-bound PQ government would have to negotiate first with the Canadian federal government of the day.

Accepting Kosovo's right to declare independence unilaterally would ensnare us into accepting Quebec's right to do the same. In fact, we will not be entirely alone with Georgia. China leans the same way (because of Tibet) and likewise Cyprus (because of the breakaway Turkish region in the north or the island). Spain is worried about a precedent that might apply to Catalonia. Russia is the strongest opponent of all, even if its real purpose is to make the United States and the European Union pay attention to it.

Given a free choice, there's no doubt Canada would support Kosovo's independence.

Instead, we're going to stand among the naysayers, while looking embarrassed.

This line of reasoning resembles Richard Gwyn’s recent column in the Toronto Star, with which I take issue. Please note that Gwyn writes for Embassy magazine.

I believe this argument to be inaccurate and/or misleading, notwithstanding issues with the Clarity Act. First, one can easily distinguish Quebec from Kosovo regarding the threshold for self-determination. The scars of genocide at the hands of Former Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic remain fresh in everyone’s mind. Nothing of the sort, even remotely, can be said of Quebec. This argument employs Canadian legal rhetoric to influence what may ultimately be an international political decision (Opinio Juris). Second, a call for negotiated settlement does not equate to the denial of unilateral separation as an option in certain circumstances.

Jeff Davis, of the same magazine, writes: “Canada, for the moment, seems to be taking a cautious stance on this issue, positioning itself closer to the Russian position than that of the United States.” Indeed, Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, says: “We have called for a negotiated settlement. We believe that is the best approach to this.” (Embassy) Davis’ article suggests that “Canada, like France, has not yet taken a firm position on this issue”, in which case, the Embassy editorial and Gwyn’s column may be attempts to push Canada’s position toward firm ground in favour of recognizing a unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo (assuming these sources are not withholding information as to the country’s official position or Cabinet leanings).

Interestingly, the “nuance” of Canada’s position on unilateral and negotiated separation seems to have escaped the Globe & Mail:

The governments of almost all the European Union countries, plus the United States and Canada, seem sure to recognize the new nation, which will be angrily opposed by Russia, China and a few countries like Cyprus that have their own breakaway regions.

For the record: Caution is good, especially in the Balkans. The current dilemma may easily have broader implications throughout the region. This does not mean, however, that the general population of Canada, including me, does not hold a sympathetic view, favouring Kosovar independence.

UPDATE: It appears that Embassy magazine now considers the first link as a column, not an editorial.

Does al-Qaeda Hate Everyone?

2007-12-12T17:56:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), linked to al-Qaeda, bombed Algeria’s Constitutional Council and UN offices in Algiers, killing more than 60 people (BBC). The bomb attack may be the worst since the country’s independence (WaPo). Conor Foley, a humanitarian aid worker, laments the loss (Guardian)

Outrage as a Political Weapon

2007-12-11T21:06:00.001-05:00

Anne Applebaum’s op-ed last week on what she calls the “teddy bear tyranny” seems rather apt (WaPo). At the risk of stating the obvious, public fear and prejudice can be manipulated toward political ends. This remains true whether in the Occident or the Orient.

Applebaum reminds readers that the sentencing of a school teacher (Gillian Gibbons) may very well fall into this category along with the Danish cartoon riots, the Salman Rushdie controversy, and the Papal “foray”. Gibbons crime was “ask[ing] her 7-year-old pupils to vote on a name for the class teddy bear”, in which the winning name was Mohammed. In her words: “… the Great Sudanese Teddy Bear Controversy […] was not actually a religious or cultural affair: It was purely political”. The timing of such an event seems fairly convenient for a Sudanese government under pressure to address the genocide in Darfur. With little doubt, the regime has “an interest in building anti-Western sentiments among the population and intimidating those who disagree”. A healthy does of skepticism, if not cynicism, seems warranted.

“Does Canada Have a Kosovo Problem?”

2007-12-11T21:03:00.000-05:00

Joshua Keating asks whether Canada has a Kosovo problem (FP Passport). His apprehension, or at least curiosity, stems from Richard Gwyn’s latest column (Toronto Star).

Notwithstanding Gwyn’s concerns about Canada’s position toward Kosovo and anxiety about the Clarity Act, S.C. 2000, c. 26, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed unilateral secession in Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, and the constitution trumps both federal statute and government policy. Under Canadian constitutional law: Quebec cannot unilaterally secede based on the results of a referendum to that effect. If a clear majority of Quebecers vote for separation, then a positive obligation rests with the Federal government and ALL the provinces to negotiate. At international law, Quebec cannot unilaterally secede, because the province “does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development.” However, the SCC did not answer the third question, finding that no conflict between constitutional and international law existed in this case.

The people of Kosovo may arguably meet the necessary threshold for self-determination at international law, and thereby legitimately secede unilaterally. Such a case would prove distinct from that of Quebec.

While I Was Gone

2007-12-11T21:00:00.000-05:00

A lot has happened in international affairs since my last post.

1) Iran: Blake Hounshell articulates the Iran dilemma in a nut shell (FP Passport). The threat of sanctions, and perhaps even the use of force, may have and may still prove useful in persuading Iran to end its nuclear weapons ambitions. A credible threat affects the decision-making of rational actors. Indeed, the Washington Post calls for caution, because, as the NIE reads, “Tehran at minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons”. If the world truly has learned lessons from Iraq, then we should not unduly embellish intelligence which serves our political preferences (WaPo).

(N.B.: For a fairly balanced assessment, I appreciated Matt Dupuis’s two posts on the matter (FP Watch).)

2) Venezuela: Hugo Chávez' “president-for-life bid” failed, 51% to 49 % (Times). A call for such power to “forge” a new “socialist republic” should send up a red flag or signal a red warning light. Chávez’ rhetoric suggested that a ‘No’ vote meant no to socialism. I’m left wondering what he thinks it meant for democracy.

Roger Cohen “salutes” El Comandante for accepting the humiliating defeat (NYT). Resisting the vote-tampering urge, despite his influence, suggests that he’s unwilling to risk the legitimacy of public appeal. Irony makes the world go ‘round, and Cohen’s "eight rules of modern political life as seen from Venezuela" may hold an element of truth (NYT).

3) France: Urban violence among disaffected French youth suggests that not much has changed (LAT). For an outsider, it remains difficult to understand this French paradox. Les banlieues met the previous government’s attempt to change labour law, which was designed to induce businesses to hire more youth by relaxing obligations toward such new employees, with violence.

4) France: President Nicolas Sarkozy does a little dance with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, figuratively speaking, of course (IHT). Perhaps I’m too cynical: Foreign Minister’s Bernard Kouchner refusal to attend the Élysée dinner in the face of Sarkozy’s extended hand seems, at first glance, like a good cop, bad cop routine. On one hand, France appears willing to work with regimes that turn their backs on terrorism and acquiring nuclear weapons. And on the other, members of the French administration seem reluctant to forgive and forget past sins. Does this demonstrate a healthy balance?

5) North Korea-US: President George Bush sent a letter to Kim Jong-il (BBC). Hopefully, North Korea will accept this letter as a signal of respect, thereby helping to neuter it as a possible motivating factor for the country’s continued defiance.

Ranking A Country’s Humanitarian Response

2007-12-01T12:51:00.001-05:00

Dara released a Humanitarian Response Index, ranking 21 countries and the EC for their individual humanitarian responses (Daraiant.org). There are five categories or “pillars”: (1) responding to humanitarian needs (purple), (2) integrating relief and development (blue), (3) working with humanitarian partners (olive), (4) implementing international guiding principles (green) and (5) promoting learning and accountability (red). The overall ranking is in orange.

Adam Lewis ponders what the US might accomplish if it gave more generously (FP Passport). Although the US gives more than all the others “in absolute terms”, its “relative generosity” receives “low marks” in terms of its gross national income (GNI). If the US gave a similar percentage of its GNI as Scandinavian countries (around 0.7), like Sweden, then its taxpayers would contribute $93.8 billion per year. At this amount, Lewis notes just how much the US could accomplish:

• Fully fund the $22.1 billion needed in 2008 to fight HIV/AIDS in low and middle-income countries, according to UNAIDS.
• Supply the World Food Program with the expected $3.3 billion needed to pay for all of its project operations in 2008.
• Treat the 425 million people infected with malaria every year for $2.40 a pop, for a total cost of $1.02 billion.
• Single-handedly fund the $5.03 billion U.N. peacekeeping budget in 2006.

Rankings:
1) Sweden,
8) Canada
9) UK
16) US
19) France
22) Italy

Don’t Take the Guinness

2007-12-01T12:49:00.000-05:00

What is the world coming to ?! A thief robs the Guinness brewery of 450 kegs of beer in Dublin, Ireland: 180 of Guinness stout, 180 of Budweiser and 90 of Carlsberg (G&M). The retail value exceeds $235,000.

Justice Cosgrove’s Inquiry & Judicial Independence

2007-12-01T12:48:00.001-05:00

The Ottawa Citizen reports that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) rejected Justice Paul Cosgrove’s application for leave to appeal. Justice Cosgrove’s appeal would have effectively stopped the Canadian Judicial Council’s inquiry into his decision to stay a murder trial on the basis of 150 Charter rights violations. The Ontario Court of Appeal (The Queen v. Elliott, Docket No.: C32813 overturned Justice Cosgrove’s trial court decision in 2003. At para. 166, the Court writes:

We conclude this part of our reasons as we began. The evidence does not support most of the findings of Charter breaches by the trial judge. The few Charter breaches that were made out, such as non-disclosure of certain items, were remedied before the trial proper would have commenced had the trial judge not entered the stay of proceedings. The trial judge made numerous legal errors as to the application of the Charter. He made findings of misconduct against Crown counsel and police officers that were unwarranted and unsubstantiated. He misused his powers of contempt and allowed investigations into areas that were extraneous to the real issues in the case.

Following, the AG of ON filed a complaint and an inquiry committee was established. Justice Cosgrove then challenged the constitutionality of subsection 63(1) of the Judges Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-1 (CanLii.ca), which serves as the legal mechanism to bring such a complaint. The Federal Court (FC) found it to be unconstitutional in Cosgrove v. Canadian Judicial Council, 2005 FC 1454 (fct-cf.gc.ca). But the AG of ON appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Canada (AG) v. Cosgrove, 2007 FCA 103 (fca-caf.gc.ca), which is where the matter stands now in light of the SCC’s refusal for leave to appeal. At para. 83, Sharlow J.A. of the FCA holds the following on the judicial independence issue:

I return to the question posed above: Would a reasonable and right minded person, knowing the relevant facts and circumstances, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, have a reasonable apprehension that subsection 63(1) of the Judges Act would impair a judge’s impartiality because it requires the Council to commence an inquiry at the request of a provincial Attorney General, without engaging in the screening procedure applied to complaints about judicial conduct made under subsection 63(2)? My analysis compels me to answer no. I conclude that subsection 63(1) of the Judges Act is constitutional.

Sharlow J.A.’s analysis starts at para. 37.

In Memory of Antonio Lamer

2007-11-26T18:15:00.001-05:00

Former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada died this weekend due to heart trouble at the age of 74 (CTV). His contributions to Canadian law amount to nothing short of remarkable, especially in criminal law and Charter rights. Kirk Makin reviews the Lamer’s legacy (G&M), citing a number of important, even landmark cases:

• [R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 SCR 265]

• [R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 SCR 933]

• [R. v. Smith, [1987] 1 SCR 1045]

• [Re B.C. Motor Vehicle, [1985] 2 SCR 486]

• [R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 SCR 636]

• [R. v. Bartle, [1994] 3 SCR 173]

• [R. v. O’ Connor, [1995] 4 SCR 411]

• [Delgamuuk v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010]

Additionally, Lamer served as Chief Justice for Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, which is as important at international law as it is in Canadian law (LexUM).

Jim Brown paints a picture of the man himself (Toronto Star).

UPDATE: I did not agree with all of Makin's case summaries, so I erased them. If time permits, I may write some of my own. Until then, check out the headnotes of each case.

Reality Check

2007-11-22T22:37:00.001-05:00

The other day, Mike Boyer offered a couple stark reality checks for “the bomb Iran! Crowd” and about the anti-Americanism in Greece (FP Passport). First, Boyer methodically attacks Joshua Muravichik’s latest column in an effort illustrate the flawed thinking of “the bomb Iran! crowd”. Second, he responds to a self-serving justification for anti-Americanism both by providing a more complete historical picture, warts and all, and by denouncing the utter hypocrisy of such self-serving rationalizations.

What strikes me, aside from Boyer’s grasp on reality, is how popular prejudice can be so misleading, whether it come from the drum beating, deterrence driven hawks or it be anti-Americanism.

To be a model power?

2007-11-19T17:56:00.001-05:00

David Eaves poses an important question about Canada’s role in the world, while relating it to a speech by British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband (Foreign Commonwealth Office): Should we be a model power (Eaves.ca)?

While such talk remains undoubtedly inviting, I wonder if it really proves useful. Diplomacy requires compromise and may consequently leave a bitter taste in the mouth. So, is it not child-like to ask such a question in the first place? Perhaps. But that would require defining what one means by “model power”, because there must be some room for error as a model power. Perfection is not a sound metric. So, how mature is Canadian foreign policy? Just asking.

Nice Shoes

2007-11-19T17:51:00.000-05:00

Susan Riley offers quite a back-handed compliment to Foreign Affairs Minister, Maxime Bernier and his predecessor, Peter Mackay (Ottawa Citizen). The allegations that Afghan authorities may be torturing prisoners handed over to them by Canadian soldiers serves as the latest blemish in the foreign affairs portfolio, and Riley believes that it exemplifies the “lame” performance by Bernier. She somewhat cynically notes, “Diplomacy is not for the pure of heart, but, done right, it involves a certain polish”, and concludes that although “Canada is not exactly putting its best foot forward”, “the shoe is nice”.

Ouch.

Hezbollah: Book Review

2007-11-13T21:44:00.000-05:00

Augustus Richard Norton's book, Hezbollah, serves as an excellent primer on the paramilitary / charitable organization (Amazon). I would recommend it as such. It does not provide an in-depth examination.

Although I read this book close to month ago, I still want to share a few words about it. Unfortunately, due to a hectic schedule, the review had to wait until now.

Norton divides his work into 7 parts, including the introduction and conclusion. Chapter 1 sets the context for the organization's founding with a little prehistory, and chapter 2 introduces the reader to Hezbollah. The third chapter touches upon Arab Shia identity and the mixing of religion and politics in Lebanon, while the fourth addresses Hezbollah's use of force and discusses whether all its acts of violence constitute terrorism. Chapter 5 discusses the complicated Lebanese electoral system, the country's politics and Hezbollah's position. And the final two chapters attempt to explain recent history, especially in the 21st century.

While I preferred the latter half of the book, namely the discussion around Hezbollah's violence and it's political role, the context found in chapters 1-3 proves valuable. I particularly enjoyed pp. 132-187, which attempted to explain recent events, including the July war of 2006.

On the whole, I found the book accessible and balanced. I appreciated Norton's nuanced account, which discussed Hezbollah's ties of convenience to Iran, its historical affinity for other Arab Shia in Iraq and it's somewhat uncomfortable relationship with Syria. One might safely conclude that Norton does not see Hezbollah as a mere pawn of Iran or of Syria despite their ties. Moreover, the author qualifies some of Hezbollah's acts of violence as terrorism, while others fall within "the rules of the game", established in the 1990s.

I should note, however, the the book left several burning questions. For example, Norton addresses Lebanese animosity toward the oppressive Palestinian paramilitary groups prior to the Israeli invasion of June 1982, but does not explain the reason for the apparent change of heart. And he also touches upon Hezbollah's anti-Israel policies without much discussion on how or if they've truly evolved.

Self-effacing or Without Pride?

2007-11-13T20:32:00.001-05:00

Andrew Cohen strikes again (Ottawa Citizen).

We are not serious about our past, our symbols, our self-image. We have little sense of how to make ourselves a more united, self-aware, purposeful people, worthy of our stature and wealth in the world. We don't act our age or our size.

Look no farther than the cancellation of the national portrait gallery in Ottawa. […]

Despite Cohen’s caustic tone, it’s difficult not to sympathize with his larger point about our dilapidated self-image. He laments that it is no longer a ‘national’ portrait gallery, because Canada is no longer a nation, that Ottawa is not treated as the country’s capital, but merely another city, that Canadians seek to “redistribute everything but ambition” and that we remain too petty to fork out money for the sake of national pride – ie, the $44M for our National Portrait Gallery compared to the $400M that the US spent on renovating its National Portrait Gallery and the American Art Museum, or to the UK, which “eliminated admission fees”.

Bizarre Support For Ron Paul

2007-11-13T20:28:00.000-05:00

As a member of the reality-based world, I’m sometimes dumbstruck by the odd marriages that the political extremes forge. How…no, why does Ron Paul seem to enjoy such support from supposedly ~~liberal-~~ left-leaning individuals? Mike Boyer captures the stark irony rather pointedly (FP Passport):

Ron Paul's candidacy was fun. I get as much of a kick out of seeing the antiwar left rally behind a guy who has no problem with folks carrying concealed Uzis as the next guy. But play time is over. We're two months away from the first primaries. And Ron Paul's 15 minutes are up. [Emphasis mine.]

I too get a kick out of watching people support a candidate who seemingly works toward objectives diametrically opposed to their own. Why stop with gun control? How about social security and international cooperation?

What do leftists and Ron Paul really have in common? Frankly, I do not have a comprehensive answer. But one issue immediately comes to mind – Iraq. Paul serves well the backlash against the war. And more broadly, he espouses an isolationist world-view that the political extremes generally share.

The question in my mind is whether this odd couple exemplifies a shortsighted alliance of convenience, a myopic one-issue vote or the negative trap into which the left often falls. Perpetually defining one’s position in contrast to that of one’s perceived adversary can mislead a person into supporting individuals, causes and issues that do not correspond to that person’s values and principles.

Liberals should remain true to their values and principles.

Rememberance Day

2007-11-11T12:28:00.000-05:00

Il faut se souvenir ...

Idealistic Foreign Policy: Promoting Democracy

2007-11-10T12:36:00.000-05:00

On the topic of idealist foreign policy, namely the promotion of democracy, I enjoyed this exchange between Jeff Weintraub and Taylor Owen (Oxblog). It highlights cracks in the practical application of neoconservative idealism. Weintraub brings up some excellent points, to which Owen provides an extensive response. Here’s an excerpt:

My main point here is not whether democracy is good or bad, but rather whether it is useful, not just as a theme, but as a meta theme of American foreign policy. For me, to be a useful meta-narrative, or core principle, many other principles of a desired foreign policy would fall under it without compromising the cohesiveness of the meta-narrative, or meta-policy. David points out that there always inconstancies in any ‘core principle’. But just how many inconsistencies are we willing to accept, and at what point do these inconsistencies threaten the very benefits the core principle is supposed to enable, ie, human rights, ect. I guess we all draw our own line here. I personally am simply not convinced that democracy promotion, in the Wilsonian, or Bush second inaugural sense, accomplishes this is a coherent way. The inconsistencies are too vast and the cost to the human costs too large.

The Muslim Left (Part 2)

2007-11-10T12:35:00.001-05:00

As a liberal, I find Ali Eteraz’s call for a Muslim left both intriguing and very tempting. However, I am unable to move past a few shortcomings with his analysis. Basically, I like the notion, at least in principle, but I dislike his articulation. In no particular order:

1) To begin, we must recognize the very ironic nature of Eteraz’s op-eds. He criticizes religious proselytizing, but advocates a secularist movement to convert people, or at least combat it. We all are prone to inconsistency and even hypocrisy, so this irony does not prove fatal for Eteraz’s argument by any means. It is simply important to remain cognizant of it, so that we can attempt to limit it.

2) Superficially, the “Iran problem” seems fairly convincing. However, Eteraz’s articulation of the intermingling of religion and politics for Shia is far too limited. Professor Haider Ala Hamoudi provides a more in-depth look at Shii and Sunni radicals and how they differ (Jurist). Reductive politics may be convenient, especially in terms of ideology or advocating a cause, but they do not necessarily make for good policy, or offer an accurate picture.

I previously attempted to summarize Hamoudi’s piece:

Sunni “Islamists” seek to “Islamicize” the modern state by influencing its legislation with codifications of ancient Islamic rules. The authority of the state, thus becomes the mechanism for imposing/implementing Islamic rule.

In contrast, Shii radicals do not see the state as the vehicle for imposing/implementing Islamic rule. Although the state may need to exercise authority in terms of foreign policy and finance, it should not interfere in areas such as family law and inheritance. These fields should remain in the hands of the marja’iyya – extra legal/religious leaders, because politicians are suspect.

While I sympathize with Eteraz’s concern regarding the overarching theme of a religious watchdog, capable of trumping elected officials, I remain aware of that a multitude of differing and even competing visions for an Islamic state exist.

3) On a number of occasions, Eteraz seems to fall prey to one of the left’s vices. Based on previous support from the US to Muslim radicals, he not so subtlyblames America for the prominence of the Muslim Right. This type of argument poses a few issues.

For example, can it go both ways: Can the US be guilty of fostering popular support for Muslim radicals both by aiding dictators whom they supposedly oppose, and for assisting Muslim radical group? To answer: it could, if one accepts the notion of short-lived policy decisions, namely alliances of convenience. However, this concept quickly becomes problematic. On one side, a person can reasonably argue that America’s sins in the region relate in large part to those of its former adversary, the Soviet Union. And on the other side, one might take a more ideological view, believing America’s sins to be examples of an Imperial power willing to do whatever in order to serve its menacing ends.

The author offers no explanation, much less context, even if one clicks on the link and reads the subsequent post. Instead, the reader is left to interpret the comments as s/he will.

4) Finally, I sympathize with the promotion of democracy as a foreign policy value, even a useful narrative, but I question it as the major driving force. While we must have idealistic goals to strive toward, we have to take realistic steps in trying to achieve such objectives. We cannot simply wish it to be so, not even for a pony (john & belle, hat tip FP Passport). But more to the point: See the next post.

The Muslim Left (Part 1)

2007-11-10T12:26:00.000-05:00

Several weeks ago Ali Eteraz advocated the support of what he labelled secular Muslims (Guardian). Although I’m rather late in writing about it, but I think that Eteraz’s piece is worth bringing up. I find the call for a “Muslim left” to be an intriguing topic, even if I disagree with Eteraz on a number of points (Guardian).

The Muslim Right

Eteraz begins with a crude comparison of Islamic da’wa to Christian Evangelism. The author then observes the “individualist revolution” occurring in Islam today, and attempts to explain the characteristics of “Islamism, the Muslim right or political Islam”. For him, the Muslim right amounts to nothing more than “an ideological movement” whose “aim is seclular, ie political power”. Jihadism is merely “[t]he most attention-grabbing child of this revolution”. And propaganda serves as the revolution’s greatest tool.

Specifically, Eteraz refers to the “Iran problem”, where “a clerical watch-dog institution” presides over elections and elected officials, at least giving the appearance of democracy. He calls this type of government “illiberal democracy”. As an interesting historical tidbit, he wonders if he should refer to it as the “Pakistan problem” instead, given the fact that the Pakistani Council of Islamic Ideology of 1962 came before the Khomeini council in 1979.

Establishing A Muslim Left

To combat this revolution, Eteraz suggests “creating a viable and well organised Muslim left”, which would “espouse the following basic ideas, without being limited to them”:

• separation of mosque and state;
• opposition to tyranny (even if the tyrant has liberal values);
• affirmance of republicanism or democracy;
• an ability to coherently demonstrate that the Muslim right represents merely one interpretation of Islam;
• a commitment to free speech and eagerness to defeat the Muslim right in the marketplace of ideas;
• commitment to religious individualism and opposition to left-collectivism, specifically Marxism;
• opposition to economic protectionism;
• opposing any and all calls for a "council of religious experts" that can oversee legislation (even if those experts are liberals); and
• affirming international law

Additionally, the Muslim left should consider employing the following strategies:

a) Popularising the slogan "theocentric, not theocratic" to counter claims of religious treason that will be hurled by Islamists;

b) An alliance with supporters of old-school Muslim orthodoxy who despite their conservative values are not the same as the Muslim right because they do not like to politicise their faith. These Muslims, by virtue of doctrine and history, have always supported separation of mosque and state, and still do;

c) Having the confidence to call their solutions truer to the ethos of Islam than the ideas of the Islamists, without engaging in apostasy wars;

d) An alliance with Marxists and neo-Marxist Muslims without getting sucked into their collectivist phantasmagoria;

e) Opposing any and all punishments, fines and stigma for "apostasy," "heresy," and "blasphemy". This includes opposition to all "sedition" crimes;

f) Accepting that the enthronement of the left through democratic means might require the intermediate step of the Muslim right succeeding as well, due largely to its head-start;

g) Supporting arts, literature, agnosticism and atheism without engaging in derogatory or insulting gestures. The battle against Islamism isn't a fight against Allah or Prophet; it is against an ideology;

h) Supporting Muslims' right to express their piety with beards, hijab, niqab in order to draw the moderates among the pietists away from the Islamists; and most importantly;

i) Opposition to all imperial western behaviour. Also, rejection of any and all alliances and support from the western right.

In furthering his argument, Eteraz provides individual examples of apparent “secular Muslims”, even if they do not necessarily conform to his laundry list of values and strategies. He names Akbar Ganji, Shirin Ebadi, Rahim Jahanbegloo, Ayatollah Kazemeini Boroujerdi Abdullahi an-Naim, Shaykh Waheeduddin Khan, Muhammad Sa’id al-Ashmawi, Muhammad Khalaf-Allah, Nurcholish Madjid and Fazlur Rahman, offering Rev. Jim Wallis as a suggested point of reference / comparison for a Western audience. The author “conceive[s] of the Muslim left as a ‘big tent’ rather than an ideological system”.

Absence

2007-11-10T12:21:00.000-05:00

I appreciate the patience of Colby File readers. If my posts ever abruptly stop, as they did these past few weeks, please know that it is not due to apathy or an intended hiatus. It probably just means that I’m out of town for work.

Questions About Abortion: To be “Pro-Life” or “Pro-Choice”

2007-10-20T13:02:00.000-04:00

When it comes to political ethics, there may or may not be a simple answer, but arriving at that answer for one’s self can often prove difficult or complicated. From this point of view, I am frustrated by reductive or deferential approaches to such moral issues. In other words, it is not so much the answer, but the approach.

Specifically, this is how I feel about the issue of abortion. Simply taking one’s religious leader’s word for it annoys me given the lack of mental and religious effort. And the reduction of the abortion issue to a convenient and politically charged slogan (ie, ‘murder’) offends me. The same may be said for those who blindly follow a given activist in the name of ‘feminism’ and ‘freedom’, for example.

Jonah Goldberg’s op-ed on ‘pro-life’ sparked, or at least, brought some ideas to the surface (LAT). I’d like to kick them around a bit, if only to organize my thoughts. It is important, for me, to give such ethical dilemmas their due.

Goldberg wonders what life means, suggesting that consciousness is not determinative, and that possessing a soul might, but doesn’t “know how they work”. He definitely views a fetus as something more than “inanimate object”, but dismisses the “culture of life” ideology. The all too common “flip-flopping” of politicians on the issue annoys him as he laments the ambiguous line between autonomy and state intrusion when it comes to life. In the end, Goldberg’s doubt is what he uses to justify his pro-life stance: If in doubt, then play it safe; be pro-life.

Admittedly, I’ve avoided the issue of when life begins, probably because I do not think that I will ever come to a satisfactory answer. Instead, I’ve concentrated mostly on the question of means – as in how the state intrudes upon personal autonomy and dignity. A previous post dealt specifically with the issue of autonomy.

The freedom of choice notion derives from the fundamental value of dignity. The idea is that the state should be limited in its ability to curb personal autonomy, which goes to human dignity. Justice Wilson’s decision in the Supreme Court case of Morgentaler serves as a powerful example of this argument. By compelling a woman to carry a fetus to term, the state effectively turns the woman into an incubator against her will.

This intrusion is severely aggravated when there is the possibility of physical harm. Indeed, the Supreme Court disapproved of the method in which Parliament sought to limit abortions due, in part, to its potential to cause harm by effectively denying women, who needed an abortion, for health reasons, the authorization necessary for the procedure.

Criminalizing abortion may also serve as another aggravating factor. The factor of facing women with the possibility of criminal penalty for not obtaining the necessary authorization in time added to the severity of the state’s intrusion on a woman’s personal autonomy.

On the flip side, there is the question of whether fetus ‘rights’ should exist. What I find intriguing is the ‘pro-life’ idea that a fetus’ supposed rights can be set up against a mother’s rights. It’s become a battle of rights between two ‘persons’. Society historically defined a ‘person’ with the condition that they be ‘born’. Consequently, mother and fetus might be considered a ‘person’ together. Instead of arguing that a woman has obligations towards a fetus, people debate the ‘rights’ of the fetus vis-à-vis the mother. This awkward approach presents a truly bizarre relationship between mother and fetus.

Issues not addressed:

(1) I wish to be clear that I truly appreciate some of the moral arguments in favor of ‘pro-life’ despite the seemingly awkward approach.

(2) Fetus ‘interests’ are different than rights.

(3) This post does not address the questions of late term abortions or partial birth abortions, which generally offend both ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ supporters.

A Viable Conservative Foreign Policy for Canada ?

2007-10-20T12:56:00.000-04:00

Kate Heartfield laments Canada’s performance in assisting “poor countries” and wonders about a Conservative foreign policy (Ottawa Citizen). Heartfield writes:

Canada could help poor countries by lowering more of its trade barriers, raising its gas taxes, making foreign aid more effective and increasing the size of its military. Now, doesn't that sound like something the Harper government could get behind?

Maybe not the gas taxes. But the rest of it is stuff that wouldn't anger the conservative voting base. It's also the latest advice from the Center for Global Development, an independent think-tank based in the United States.

There's a pervasive but wrong idea out there that development is just about the Canadian International Development Agency doling out money. Almost everything Canada does is a foreign-policy decision, and almost every foreign-policy decision is a development decision. This being Throne Speech day, it's a good time to take a hard look at Canada's place in the world.

I sympathize with Heartfield in that Canada’s foreign policy in recent decades has been truly lamentable. Politicians, pundits and Canadians, in general, may continue to blame the US, but the reality-based community realizes that this unfortunate trend will not resolve the problem (Eaves.ca).

PM Harper’s Speech from the Throne proved Heartfield to be too optimistic (gc.ca). For liberal internationalists, the commitment to Afghanistan seems like mere consolation. The Conservatives seek to undermine Kyoto and appear too preoccupied with the Artic.

Canadians knew that the Throne Speech was a trap, and the leader of the opposition could have taken the bait (G&M). The critics apparently think that Dion’s pass on triggering an election was the right move (G&M), even if he had to eat humble pie (G&M). It seems that Liberal MPs supported the idea before the announcement.

Regardless of whether the Liberals made the ‘right move’ in order to win tomorrow, it does not affect my disappointment with the Conservatives. One would think that the CPC could back a foreign policy similar to the one Heartfield proposes, except for the gas taxes.

Competition v. Trade

2007-10-15T17:26:00.000-04:00

Alan M. Rugman and Karl Moore have an op-ed in today’s Ottawa Citizen, which I believe exemplifies a confusing trend. Needless to say, Rugman and Moore hold significant expertise in the area of business. However, I believe that this op-ed inappropriately reduces both the case (ie, MS v. EU) and the tension between international trade and competition law (aka, “antitrust” law in American speak) in order to make a tenuous point about globalization.

At the last international convention I attended, one panel member suggested that international competition law is where trade law was prior to Seattle. I found this statement fairly insightful. How often do we hear complaints about international trade, which directly relate to a competition issue? Is it a case of government policy or a cartel or abuse of dominance or something else? Granted trade and competition are interrelated, but we still need to correctly identify the issue at hand.

To make matters complicated, governments may inappropriately employ legitimate antitrust measures to limit trade, whether sincerely or cynically. This is precisely the point that Rugman and Moore make.

Firms such as Wal-Mart and Microsoft need to understand that a business model developed for North America will need to be adapted when going to Europe and Asia.

In the case of Microsoft the key difference is in the way that the EU regulatory system operates. In Europe competition policy can be used as a barrier to entry. An individual firm (in this case, Sun Microsystems) can signal an EU-wide investigation. In this process the deck is stacked against the foreign firm. In 2001 the U.S. firm General Electric also made a similar mistake in its planned acquisition of Honeywell which was disallowed by the EU.

Sometimes the reason for this discrepancy is self-serving. Other times it comes down to a fundamentally different view of economics and the role that competition does and should play. Rugman and Moore write:

While the United States has somewhat similar anti-trust provisions, the application of these is more business friendly than in Europe. U.S. anti-trust aims to help consumers, whereas EU law helps competitors. Microsoft was able to settle its anti-trust case with the Bush administration, but it failed to do so with the EU. The regulatory climate in Europe is harsher than in North America.

I would add that North American authorities recognize that large firms may pass their efficiencies onto customers, specifically in terms of low prices. North American and Europe seem to hold a fundamentally different view with respect to large firms. North America tends to be more tolerant given certain conditions, whereas Europe appears more hostile. (Generally speaking.) The MS v. EU case serves as an example of this tension.

While Rugman and Moore address these points, they seem more concerned with tying the matter in with a larger argument regarding globalization. The two observe:

The lessons of the Microsoft case are the following. First, globalization is a myth; instead world business is conducted mainly on an intra-regional basis within each part of the triad. Second, it is unlikely that the regulatory standards across the triad will be harmonized. Third, even in high-tech areas such as software Internet applications, the technology itself does not guarantee the flat promise of worldwide market access.

All this means that any Canadian firms going global need to significantly adjust their business models. They need to adopt different regional strategies and spend considerable time understanding the differing role of governments in the three major economic regions of the world: the EU, Asia and North America.

Although firms should no doubt heed the advice of Rugman and Moore by “adjust[ing]” their business models” and “adopt[ing] different regional strategies”, this op-ed does not support the their list of lessons learned. The authors provide an example of a trade impediment and mention others outside of competition law. But this op-ed does not make a compelling argument that globalization is “myth” or that regulatory standards will “unlikely … be harmonized”. The authors do not even define the term “globalization”, much less explain the reasons why states will not agree on “regulatory standards” in the future or in principle, including those related to competition law and policy. The very existence of the International Competition Network (ICN) suggests an attempt to overcome existing impediments and to pass knowledge and experience to developing economies. In fact, the working relationship in the Anglosphere, namely the UK, the US and Canada, bridges the European-North American divide. The existence of hurdles does not mean that the international community is not on a path to greater integration.

Eaves on Manley Inquiry re Afghanistan

2007-10-15T17:25:00.000-04:00

David Eaves hopes that a blue ribbon commission on Afghanistan will help “elevate the level of discussion” on the issue of Canada’s involvement (Eaves.ca). I sympathize with Eaves’ view that Canadian political discourse has been “mired in partisan battles shaped more by who can exploit the situation for political gain than by assessing what is the best option for Canada.” I even share the view that the NDP and the Liberals (note this is me criticizing my own party) have been pandering to public fears – or as I would put it – against populist prejudices against the foreign policy of the current American administration. I truly would like to see something resembling a coherent foreign policy from one of the major parties.

However, I should concede the point that Scott Tribe makes in the commentary subsequent to Eaves’ post (Scott’s DiaTribes). It is “hardly a non-partisan commission” with three Conservatives and one “Liberal hawk”. If the Conservative government wishes to give more legitimacy to this commission, then it should make sure that there is at least some representation for the leftist, isolationist approach.

I Hate Montreal …(& Toronto)

2007-10-15T17:24:00.001-04:00

Carline Touzin has an article today, addressing the rivalry between Quebec City and Montreal (La Presse). The subtitle caught my eye:

Aux yeux des régions, Montréal et ses habitants sont coupables d'arrogance, d'aveuglement, d'égoïsme, d'ignorance À Québec, politiciens, gens d'affaires, promoteurs et journalistes en ont long à dire sur les travers et les péchés de la métropole.

Can the same be said for Toronto? After all, the apparent dislike of the Ontario capital runs deep enough throughout the English part of the country that a documentary was made about it (Reuters), entitled Let’s All Hate Toronto. Is this mere jealousy, as Torontonians might like to believe? Or are there subtle media, economic and sports biases to which the rest of the country remains sensitive?

Also, the former hockey rivalry between the Habs and the Nordiques, as the picture from the article captures, resembles the current divide between Sens and Leaf’s fans. It’s fairly common to see signs or hear chants along the lines of “Leafs/Toronto Sucks” at Scotia Bank Place. And I remember watching a Sens playoff game at a bar in Toronto where the crowd cared less about supporting a given team than railing Ottawa.

I guess my point (if I have one) is that this attitude is not unique to Montreal, even if there are two solitudes – ie, Montreal vis-à-vis French speaking Canada and Toronto vis-à-vis English speaking Canada.

Reminder on Ghost Detainees

2007-10-15T17:22:00.000-04:00

Gitanjali S. Guiterrez writes in anticipation of meeting her new client, Majid Khan, for the first time (WaPo). Sadly, the American Executive has denied Khan’s existence and his basic right to counsel since 2003 (presumably among other rights). Gutierrez is a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights. He op-ed serves as a reminder of the detainees held incommunicado.

When I read this piece, I couldn’t help but wonder about a desire for relief, and what the next President of the US will do once s/he inherits this mess. In principle, I agree that military tribunals and that measures to ensure the secrecy of certain government intelligence may be warranted. However, this administration has arguably gone beyond reason. For example, there is no reasonable excuse for denying the right to counsel for 4 years.

Aux bloggers francophones : Offre d’échange

2007-10-12T18:00:00.001-04:00

J’aimerais me perfectionner en français, surtout mon français écrit. Alors, je propose une offre d’échange aux bloggers francophones. On pourrait faire un débat par semaine ou par mois, chaque fois dans l’autre langue. On peut se discuter les politiques, le droit, le sport, la cuisine, la culture, etc. J’uis pas difficile. Je crois que cette idée peut créer un pont linguistique et culturel. Et on peut aussi demander que tous les commentaires des visiteurs soient dans la langue du débat.

Si cela vous intéresse, s.v.p., faîtes des commentaires en bas. Merci.

Latin American Constitutional Reform

2007-10-12T17:57:00.000-04:00

Rafael Correa, Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales exemplify a new wave of social upheaval in Latin America carrying the banner of “socialism”. All three have scraped their countries’ constitutions in favor of recreating new ones, which would help to enable their reforms. Ben Whitford offers some wise words of caution regarding this perpetual revision of a country’s most basic laws (Guardian):

But there's a heavy cost to this kind of disposable democracy. Latin America's constitutional reforms have historically been presaged by a weakening of the judiciary and the legislature, and followed by a wider erosion of democratic checks and balances. In both Argentina and Peru, initially popular reforms ultimately helped foster corruption, repression and political polarization; similar patterns are arguably now playing out in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador.

Even more worrying, by robbing political players of their faith in the continuity of the political system, the constant restructuring of the status quo creates an environment in which newly-dominant factions seek to amass as much power as possible as quickly as possible. That both perpetuates the cycle of instability and, at its worst, paves the way for a slide into authoritarianism.

At fault is a fundamental misconception about the role of the constitution in a democratic society. Basic laws function best not when they try to solve social problems directly, but rather when they provide a framework through which opposing political agents can negotiate solutions and compromises. But instead of seeking to establish common rules to which both sides can agree, Latin America's rash of highly-politicized constitutions have become little more than mechanisms through which political elites seek to monopolize power and isolate their opponents.

By rigging the system in this way, constitutional reforms increase the likelihood both that the ruling power will veer into authoritarian excess and that frustrated opposing factions will fall back on undemocratic methods as they seek to regain a stake in the political process.

Nobody questions the fact that Latin America needs social change; the status quo is far from perfect, and inequality, poverty and social exclusion are real and pressing problems. But Correa, Chávez and Morales should exercise caution: by too readily tearing down their countries' institutions they risk merely perpetuating Latin America's historic cycle of repression and political upheaval.

I sympathize with Whitford’s desire for a fundamental framework within which to seek change. Constitutional bounds foster stability as the political pendulum swings back and forth. They serve as the arena in which political adversaries negotiate compromises. By turning the highest law of the land into a political weapon, one undermines both its legitimacy and its staying power. In this way, Correa, Chávez and Morales ironically subvert their presumable ambitions for lasting social change.

Western Conspiracy to Sterilize Muslims

2007-10-12T17:56:00.001-04:00

Did you know that the West, through its UN enabler, is conspiring to sterilize Muslims under the guise of polio vaccines? Even though Nigerian leaders called for a boycott in 2003 of the vaccine, there has been an outbreak of the disease (FP Passport). 69 Nigerian children “have been paralyzed by polio” since 2005. And after the boycott, polio has “jump[ed] to 12 new countries in 18 months”.

The West’s claim that the reason for the outbreak relates directly to the under vaccination of children is just a convenient ploy. How ridiculous to think that a vaccinated child could spread the disease to unvaccinated child through water contamination as the virus mutates !

It’s lucky that certain clerics in other countries, like Pakistan, have issued fatwas against the vaccination to protect vulnerable people who might not know better (FP).

However, the recent polio outbreak pales in comparison to AIDS, which is a CIA creation. The west even goes so far as to infect condoms with the disease (FP Passport). But rest assured that one can cure AIDS “with herbs and a banana” (FP Passport).

We seriously need to fight the extensive level of misinformation, propaganda and self-serving hysteria on the part of local leaders surrounding health care. And we cannot take our own progress for granted (WaPo).

Questionable Priorities: Poppy Eradication

2007-10-11T17:09:00.000-04:00

Earlier this week, Brian Ulrich lamented American and NATO policy towards Afghanistan’s opium trade. The rationale in favour of poppy eradication, namely that warlords and the Taliban depend on the opium trade, doesn’t have legs, because the country relies it. Ulrich asks the reader to measure the cost of purchasing the opium in order to legitimize the trade versus the cost of the poppy eradication policy.

In light of Matthew Yglesias’ commentary, I truly wonder whether NATO has its priorities in the right order. Is the main objective to help stabilize the country with a viable economic and political system? Or is it to strike at the financial means of NATO adversaries, namely the Taliban?

Jeb Koogler also questions NATO’s priorities by citing Yglesias along with a NYT article and a LAT op-ed. In the last piece, Peter Bergen and Sameer Lalwani offer some compelling suggestions:

The State Department strategy misses the forest for the trees. The priority of the United States and NATO should be first to thwart the Taliban insurgency while bettering the lives of typical Afghans through significant economic and reconstruction efforts to win hearts and minds. Doing nothing on the poppy front would do more to achieve this goal than the counterproductive eradication path the U.S. currently pursues. The U.S. should adopt a "first do no harm" policy that temporarily suspends eradication while implementing a promising portfolio of new initiatives to build up alternatives for farmers.

To begin with, the U.S. needs to invest in building up the legitimate Afghan economy. Though poppy fetches much higher prices than most other crops, subsidies, price supports and seeds for alternative crops should be offered to offset that price gap. Because other crops often face pitfalls such as the absence of distributors, domestic demand or consistent prices abroad, the international community should help Kabul set up an agency, modeled on the Canadian Wheat Board, that would purchase crops from farmers at consistent prices, and market and distribute them internationally. The U.S. and other NATO countries should open their markets and extend trade preferences to Afghan agricultural products and handicrafts.

Currently, the U.S. funds alternative livelihoods at one-third the rate of eradication efforts -- and the money is still not making its way into the pockets of farmers. Because of bureaucratic inefficiencies, only 1% of the $100 million in funds for alternative livelihoods had been disbursed as of March, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. One reason for this is that the Afghan narcotics ministry lacks the staff and skills to quickly and effectively disburse funds. So the task should be outsourced -- in the same manner the U.S. outsources its eradication efforts to private companies like DynCorp -- until the Afghan government develops the capacity to get the job done.

The U.S. and NATO should also endorse a pilot project proposed by the Senlis Council, an international nongovernmental organization with offices in southern Afghanistan, to harness poppy cultivation for the production of legal medicinal opiates such as morphine for sale to countries, such as Brazil, that are in short supply of cheap pain drugs for patients.

The U.S. must stop targeting poor farmers and focus on the traffickers who make the bulk of the profits from heroin. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents on the ground should step up efforts to interrupt money-laundering networks and interdict labs and shipments. The DEA should also turn Afghanistan's shame-based culture to its advantage by making public the list of top Afghan drug suspects, including government officials, as it did in the 1990s, when it publicized the names of Colombia's drug kingpins.

The suggestions that Bergen and Lalwani make seem like a matter of common sense, depending on effective and efficiently they can be implemented. The devil lies in the details.

Of particular interest, Koogler notes the call for a body similar to the CWB with respect to the opium trade. Obviously, the economic situations between Canada and Afghanistan differ drastically. However, I wonder if there is a grain of similarity regarding US attitudes towards the notion of a single marketing board for a given product/commodity. Does a prejudice against such economic measures exist in general? After all, the CWB serves as an “irritant” in “bilateral relations between Canada and the United States” (Wiki). Or are the attacks against the CWB based on other reasons (eg, special interest)?

Reflections: The Ontario Election (Part 2)

2007-10-11T17:07:00.000-04:00

Results

As I hope most Ontarians already know, the Liberal Party of Ontario won the election. CBC calls it a “massive majority”, increasing its seats from 67 to 71 out of a possible 107. The Progressive Conservatives floundered with 26 and the Dippers maintained 10. Interestingly, PC leader John Tory lost his own riding, and the Green Party “more than doubled their share of the popular vote” even though they did not win a seat.

Referendum: FPTP v. MMP

Ontario voters rejected the mixed member proportional (MMP) plan, leaving the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system still in place (CBC). The MMP enjoyed only 36.8% approval, while 63.2% preferred the FPTP.

It seems that “[d]espite Elections Ontario’s $6.8-million education campaign … many voters appeared unaware the referendum was being held.” The NDP leader, Howard Hampton, is quoted as saying “[t]he referendum had no chance”. Consequently, advocates of the MMP plan have “bitterly criticized the Liberal government and Elections Ontario”.

Record Low Voter Turnout

The province’s election turnout “hit an all-time low” with a mere 52.6% of eligible voters casting a ballot (CBC). The previous record was set in 1923 with 54.7%. And the last election, in 2003, managed 56.9%.

Reflections

Although I facetiously call my riding ‘Dipper land’, I congratulate the NDP on its increase in the popular vote. In all candor, I seriously doubt that I could ever vote for the NDP at the federal level. The Party’s philosophy and positions regarding foreign affairs, economics and international trade too often run counter to my own. However, I try to maintain a more neutral attitude regarding the NDP at the provincial level.

Additionally, I found the dramatic break through of the Green Party fairly exciting. I believe that the Party’s increase in popularity signals a desire to take action regarding the environment, if only at the provincial level. And I hope that the Ontario Liberals will take it to heart.

As for the Progressive Conservatives, I wonder if Nelson Wiseman was right – that John Tory shot himself in the foot (Ottawa Citizen). For the record, I generally find some common ground with Red Tories. In my personal experience, I find that we usually disagree on nuance in both assessing the problem and approaching a resolution. However, I tend to fundamentally differ with the conservative base, not unlike that of the federal NDP.

Basically, I'm left-of-centre.

Cyberwarfare

2007-10-09T17:59:00.000-04:00

Duncan Hollis, of Opinion Juris, has an intriguing op-ed in the LAT. Hollis advocates a “tailor[ing]” of the laws of war to cyberspace. Simply applying the existing laws, as they stand today, by analogy, does not adequately address this new battlespace. In the op-ed, he lists a few problems with the status quo: “translation problems”, a focus on conflicts between states, and the ability to exploit complex national and international laws that “kick in” when the laws of war fail to apply, “even by analogy”. Moreover, there have been a number of examples demonstrating the issue’s importance: cyber attacks against Estonia, Chinese hacking of the US DOD and Israeli hacking of Syrian air defences.

Reflections: The Ontario Election

2007-10-09T17:57:00.000-04:00

Michael Polowin attacks the Liberal Party of Ontario for exploiting our society’s “intolerance for political gain” (Ottawa Citizen). Polowin observes the polls, although he fails to mention them by name, on questions relating to religious affiliation. From these polls, it appears that Ontarians do not want public employees to wear “overt symbols” of their religion, such as the hijab or the yarmulke. And Ontarians believe that “[f]unding should not be extended because [the province] already has a major challenge making sure that our large immigrant population fits in and shares our values”. Polowin takes for granted, rightly or wrongly, that these sentiments accurately reflect a type of xenophobia among Ontarians, and that the vocal Liberal campaign strategy of sharply criticizing public funding for faith-based schools somehow exploits this negative predisposition.

To begin, Polowin and I may have fundamentally different ideals of where we’d like our society to go. I’d like to see an accepting society, not necessarily a tolerant one. The word “tolerate” connotes the notion of putting up with someone or something. For example, I might tolerate the neighbour’s dog’s barking. In contrast, I find that the word “accept” suggests a higher degree of harmony and understanding. With that said, I recognize the possibility that this point of divergence may be nothing more than word choice, semantics, but yet, noteworthy.

Troubling, as a lawyer, Polowin makes some questionable assumptions as to underlying rationales. For example, even if he is correct about Ontarian prejudices, he assumes that Ontarians favour the Liberals based on them. The two may not be related at all. Are there not a multitude of other factors, which might explain the Liberal lead in the polls?

Additionally, he assumes that Liberals “cynical[ly]” exploit these prejudices regarding the issue of public funding for faith-based schools. I find this contention terribly misguided. For example, I sincerely, not cynically, oppose public funding for faith-based schools for a a couple reasons.

First and foremost, I believe that when our children go to school together, side-by-side, we are helping to create a more accepting society. For example, the public school busing program in the southern US seeks to combat racism. From my own personal experience with the program, I’ve noticed that it’s much more difficult for adults to pass on their prejudices of a given class of people to their children when they go to school and befriend members of that given class. Ironically, it would seem that encouraging a multicultural and multi-faith student population might lead to a more accepting society, not the other way around.

Second, I sincerely believe that public funding should generally go towards public institutions and initiatives. I recognize that there may be exceptions, but I do not believe that education is necessarily one. Private schools should remain private. These private institutions have the ability to deviate from the public system as they wish, and this freedom is often their raison d’être. I believe in maintaining the choice between this leeway and public money.

Moreover, Polowin seems to disregard the blatant mudslinging of John Tory’s campaign. It seems, at least superficially, disingenuous, to criticize a politician on the left for not playing fair, while condoning the attack ads of a politician on the right. Polowin feels no compunction about bolstering Tory’s character swipes with references to the unspecified polls he mentions.

Finally, Polowin seems to be taking an end run around actually addressing the issue he raises in his op-ed. He laments supposed Liberal motives for sharply criticizing Tory’s plan regarding faith-based schools. But he does not explain why Ontarians should support it.

Other op-eds and columns:

For all my criticism of Polowin’s op-ed, Haroon Siddiqui seems a bit ‘overly sensitive’ to the public-funding-faith-based-schools issue, by reducing it to Islamaphobia (Toronto Star). Siddiqui does not make it clear why one should take the Catholic schools issue out of its historical context – ie, relating to this country’s, indeed this province’s, tension between predominantly Protestant Anglophones and largely Catholic Francophones (even if it’s only apparent to those in Eastern and Northern Ontario). Moreover, there’s no mention if this type of division should still be around today.

And on the election in general, Murray Campbell offers a rather sobering picture of the electoral landscape for Ontario Liberals (G&M). “The Liberals picked up just two percentage points […], which is less than the NDP.” The Strategic Counsel polls shows “the Liberals with the support of 42 per cent of respondents, compared with 27 per cent for the Conservatives, 19 per cent for the New Democratic Party and a surprising 11 per cent for the Green Party.” Campbell suggests that Liberal success will not come because the public has “fallen in love” with Dalton McGuinty, but that Tory shot himself in the foot

No matter your political persuasion: GO VOTE TOMORROW !

Also, to learn more about First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) and Mixed Member Proportional (MMP).

Happy Thanksgiving / Bonne action de grâce

2007-10-08T11:22:00.000-04:00

To my fellow Canadians, I hope that you're enjoying your Thanksgiving weekend.

Unintended Absence

2007-10-05T21:42:00.001-04:00

I appreciate your patience. The past blogging hiatus was not intended. Due to a variety of factors including travel and work, I had no time to contribute to this blog. Although my crazy schedule will likely continue for the month of October, I will post as often as I can.

Hill’s Law Suit Against the Police

2007-10-05T21:40:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued a rather important ruling this Thursday. The G&M reports that police may now be sued for negligently handled investigations. While Mr. Hill, who wrongly spent 20 months in jail, lost his suit, his lawyers seemed pleased that the SCC observed the existence of a tort for negligent investigation. In Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, the court found a prima facie "duty of care in negligence owed to suspects being investigated" and the related conduct must be " measured against the standard of how a reasonable officer in like circumstances would have acted" (Lexum, U de M).

Depending on one’s point of view, this may or may not be a good thing (G&M). On one end, investigators are less likely to cut corners or engage in sloppy work if there is the possibility they could be held more accountable. However, on the other end, one wonders if this opens the door to a means of coercing police work by threatening civil action.

I appreciate the dissent's policy rationales against the existence of such a duty of care, but I'm not sure that I agree. I understand the notion that if police conduct actually meets the bar necessary to breach the duty, and thus amounting to a negligent investigation, then the accused would likely be acquitted. However, this does not guarantee an acquittal. Moreover, a conviction and punishment are not the only damages that a suspect might suffer. Legal costs? Reputation? Loss of work? Etc.

Is the PA a state?

2007-10-05T21:38:00.000-04:00

Professor Roger Alford observes a federal district court case, Bilton v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, which held that the Palestinian Authority (PA) does not constitute a state, and therefore does not enjoy immunity regarding the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) (Opinio Juris). The case touches upon one of the more basic questions in international law of when a governing authority constitutes a state and why. In an extremely ironic way, the PA might enjoy sovereignty as part of the Israeli state even if it does not constitute a state itself?

London to Hear Softwood Lumber Dispute

2007-10-05T21:37:00.000-04:00

Professor Julian Ku finds it strange that the US and Canada are opting out of the NAFTA arbitration regime in favour of the London Court of International Arbitration, which normally hears matters relating to private parties, not states (Opinio Juris). In fact, it does seem as though the two are “using international arbitration to avoid international arbitration”. (See also Roger Alford’s post, Opinio Juris.)

Even though the Softwood Lumber Agreement (DFAIT) only came into effect a year ago – ie, October 12, 2006 – we find ourselves, again, in dispute. The Canadian press release suggests that “The U.S. announcement relates to a technical interpretation of the Softwood Lumber Agreement, and a disagreement with respect to certain provincial programs” (DFAIT) [emphasis mine]. In contrast, the rhetoric of U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab is somewhat less ambiguous, but provocative: ““It is truly regrettable that, just ten months after the Agreement entered into force, the United States has no choice but to initiate arbitration proceedings to compel Canada to live up to its SLA obligations relating to export volume caps, proper application of the import surge mechanism, and anti-circumvention” (USTR).

As the Financial Post explains, the issue relates to a mechanism to compensate for prices falling below a given threshold. Due to the recent American housing “slump”, prices have supposedly triggered this mechanism. The FP article, however, does offer some room for optimism, indicating that the current arbitration process is “moving at break-neck speed”.