There are those that will argue that the controversy regarding Mr. Harper and the speech that he gave in Parliament in 2003 that plagiarized a speech given by Australia’s then Prime Minister, John Howard, is little more than a political move on the part of the Liberals, who are waning in the polls.

Given that we’re in the midst of a federal election, I’ll certainly not deny that this revelation is incredibly timely, especially given the fact that the speech was made five years ago.

That said; as an independent observer, and someone that does not support the Liberal Party, nor any other party for that matter, confronting the actual issue behind the plagiarism is something I feel highly relevant.

The speech that Mr. Harper gave in 2003 was one in which he urged this country to join the ‘coalition of the willing’, and thus involve us in the US led invasion of Iraq. One therefore has to ask several fundamental questions.

1) Were the Prime Minister to gain a majority, would there be a reversal of policy regarding Iraq, even if such an alteration did not promise the inclusion of Canadian combat assistance?

2) Does the Prime Minister still hold to the belief that Canada should have supported the invasion of Iraq?

3) Given what has occurred since, would he have supported Canadian involvement in the occupation of that country?

These are fundamental questions that I feel are highly relevant.

Then there is the act of plagiarism itself. Obviously, Owen Lippert, the individual that wrote the speech given by Mr. Harper, has now resigned. Having done so, Lippert has claimed that neither Mr. Harper, nor his superiors, were aware that he had plagiarized Howard’s speech.

This is where the Prime Minister’s continual promotion of ethical government must be questioned. No matter who was responsible for writing the speech, it was one that Mr. Harper gave in the House, and therefore exists within the Parliamentary record as his own. Despite the fact that it was written by Lippert, for the Prime Minister to now claim that he cannot be held to account is entirely hypocritical given his steadfast promotion of government accountability and transparency. Five years have passed since the speech was made, and yet it is only now, after the truth was uncovered, that Lippert has resigned.

That, in and of itself, should say something to Canadians with regards to how Mr. Harper runs his shop.

Jean-Pierre Bemba, the ex-Vice President of the DR Congo, has been extradited to The Hague to face war crime charges. While a rebel leader in 2002, forces under Bemba’s command have been accused of committing atrocities, an accusation that Bemba naturally denies.

The likes of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and a cast of others will not share Bemba’s fate. The reason? Because the United States opted out of the ICC after 9/11 and because high level American officials, even ones that are no longer in office, never have to answer for their actions as they pertain to war crimes. Major world powers never do.

Prosecuting the little fish for their actions is one thing, and certainly keeps many believing that justice is something that has not altogether vanished. But the reality remains that those responsible for widespread crimes, such as the illegal invasion of nations based on fallacies and the subsequent loss of life produced, are not held accountable if they are undertaken by major world powers. The reason for that is, of course, quite simple – who has the power to bring them to justice?

The answer is, unfortunately, no one.

The United States is, according to the United States, a beacon of global freedom, of equality, and the protection of human rights. Of course, their implementation of such values when it comes to their deliverance at then end of a rifle is entirely hypocritical. They can point to others and claim that human rights abuses must not be tolerated while, at the same time, completely disregard international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the Universal Declaration by indefinitely detaining individuals – not to mention creating a global network of secret facilities at which to employ torture to interrogate them. They can claim that they are a beacon of global freedom, but the fact remains that the freedom they strive to deliver others is one wholly steeped in their own best interests.

Of course, the United States is not alone when it comes to such hypocrisy. Every member of the United Nations Security Council is a global military enabler, as they constitute the most prolific arms manufacturers and retailers in the world. Ironically, when it comes to making UN sanctioned decisions as to who will and won’t be punished for transgressions, be they real or simply the result of foreign policy agendas, the same five nations represent the world’s most influential voices.

Bemba will face justice. But despite his transgressions, he is merely a little fish in a much larger ocean, onE in which sharks always have the final say.

When it comes to John McCain there is going to be a considerable amount of double talk in the months ahead. One of the key issues that I hope that Americans focus on is McCain’s connection to lobbyists, two of which took ‘sabbaticals’ to run his campaign. Not long ago, nine McCain staffers were purged because of their ties to lobbyists after it became apparent that it could hurt him, especially given his rhetoric on the subject.

I can’t believe I’m actually about to do this, but in an interview on Fox News yesterday, McCain was asked the following by Chris Wallace…

“Let me ask you one last question. David Axelrod said you talked in your speech today about changing the way Washington does business, but your campaign is run by two of the biggest lobbyists in Washington. How do you respond to that?”

McCain’s response was, as one might expect, befuddled. He stumbled and then said…

“…they are not lobbyists, but the fact is Americans care about my vision and plan of action for the future…”

Not surprisingly, it being Fox News, Wallace did not pressure McCain for a direct answer, nor did the Senator from Arizona provide one.

This is an issue that should concern Republican supporters, especially those that stalwartly believe in the principles of small government.

It was only a matter of time until a second investigation was opened into the Bernier affair. The Prime Minister has already stated that the Department of Foreign Affairs will be internally investigating the matter, but as I’ve learned through a source on the Hill, there’s basically no one left at Foreign Affairs that can realistically undertake it in a timely fashion.

The House of Commons Committee that will be looking into the affair will begin proceedings next Tuesday and will conduct hearings for four days, agreeing to continue even if the House breaks for the summer.

From the CBC…

“Opposition MPs on the public safety committee, led by the Bloc Québécois, out-voted the Conservative minority on Monday to expedite an investigation into the political storm involving Bernier and ex-girlfriend Julie Couillard, who had ties to criminal biker gang members.

The move came after Harper dismissed calls for an independent inquiry or an RCMP investigation on Monday in the House.

The committee probe will begin next Tuesday.”

Now that’s leadership for you. A breach in national security occurs and the Prime Minister dismisses calls for the RCMP to investigate the matter. Even more, suggestions that an independent inquiry be held were also summarily dismissed.

Transparency? Accountability? I vaguely remember Mr. Harper using those words infinitum some time ago.

Not surprisingly, coverage by Canadian Conservative pundits on the web has been extremely limited.

A fair number of readers have emailed me and asked why I haven’t commented on the resignation of Maxime Bernier. My response is that I wanted to wait until the air cleared somewhat before doing so.

While the government will not release what the status of classification of the documents left at Bernier’s ex-girlfriend’s house – which could range from confidential to top secret – there is no denying that Bernie left the documents at Julie Couillard’s residence for five weeks, after which Miss Couillard showed the documents to her lawyer who instructed her to return them to the government.

That said; it’s not known whether Miss Couillard read the documents or discussed their contents with anyone. Further, that aspect of this event has not been investigated, nor has the Canadian press been updated as to whether it will be. There is, of course, a possibility that it already is, but that’s speculation at this point.

According to the government, the documents contained information to do with the NATO conference this past April, which included the controversial issue of the implementation of the US backed Eastern European missile defense system. Also on the agenda was the promotion of the participation of more NATO nations in ISAF’s combat operations in Afghanistan.

The main issue, as far as I’m concerned, is how the Department of Foreign Affairs was unaware that the documents were missing for five weeks. An internal investigation is currently under way, though, not surprisingly, it’s being conducted by the Department of Foreign Affairs itself, and not, for example, by the Privy Council.

Other concerns include Miss Couillard’s storied past, which can be further examined here and here.

Skewed Timeline

Another troubling aspect of this affair is the fact that the Prime Minister was not notified of the security breach for almost a day. Speaking in the House on the matter, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings pointed out…

“How can anyone believe that this all-controlling Prime Minister was not briefed about something this explosive between Sunday afternoon when they got the documents and Monday afternoon, 5 p.m.”

Jennings makes a critically valid point, and one that should certainly concern all Canadians with regards to both the competency of the current government and, in my opinion, the probability that they were buying time to deal with the potential political fallout rather than immediately addressing the overriding security aspects of the situation. The possibility of the latter is only made more plausible by the fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs has been appointed to investigate the matter internally.

US Army active duty suicides were up in 2007, according to Pentagon officials, surpassing the number of suicides in 2006, reaching 108. And to think that not too long ago there were actual discussions taking place at to the merits of post-traumatic stress disorder. One truly unfortunate aspect of this news is that a quarter of those that took their own lives did so while in Iraq.

While on the subject of Iraq, many of you are probably aware that former Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s new book makes some interesting assertions about the Bush Administration’s reasons for going to war in Iraq and the way in which the war was promoted and planned. Not surprisingly, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is defending the administration claiming that the fundamental reason for invading Iraq in 2003 was the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Her logic? That you can’t look at it from a current point of view, but rather one prior to the invasion given the intelligence available.

Ya, Curveball was an amazingly reliable source, Condi.

Rice also employed the term ‘liberated’ with regards to the invasion and occupation. Five years, and countless lives after the ‘liberation’ of Iraq, it remains the most dangerous place in the world. So much so that millions of Iraqis have fled ‘liberated’ Iraq.

Of course, this is where those with no leg to stand on will point to the tyrannical realities of the Hussein regime and claim that his removal from power was paramount, that he was responsible for mass murder and a laundry list of other crimes.

And that’s true. I’m not going to argue that at all. But having said that, let’s have a little fun with a timeline regarding a horrible event that many pro-war pundits like to use as an example of why the Hussein regime needed to be overthrown.

1) In 1988 the Kurdish village of Halabja was gassed. Thousands were killed and injured in the attack, which was condemned throughout the world.

2) After the attack, Congress voted to stop all military and financial assistance to the Hussein regime.

3) President Ronald Reagan vetoed it.

4) The United States continued to aid the regime of Saddam Hussein.

This is fact, not fiction, and it would be well of those that believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein was of paramount importance to remember that the United States had dealings with Mr. Hussein as far back as the mid 1960’s.

You do not get to help create and feed monsters only to claim that history is inconsequential when it doesn’t suit your hegemonic objectives. Unless, of course, you’re the most powerful country in the world. Then you can get away with just about anything – including rewriting history, or simply making it disappear.

9/11 did more than just blind a nation, allowing one of the most dangerous foreign policy doctrines in US history to be instituted. It also largely rendered history moot. And that, no matter what the occurrence, is a very dangerous thing indeed.

This evening (GMT), former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, will be speaking at the Hay Festival in Wales. After his speech, noted British journalist George Monbiot intends to place Mr. Bolton under citizens arrest for war crimes. From Monbiot’s blog…

“On Wednesday 28th May 2008, I will attempt a citizen’s arrest of John Robert Bolton, former Under-Secretary of State, US State Department, for the crime of aggression, as established by customary international law and described by Nuremberg Principles VI and VII.

These state the following:

“Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

…

“Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”

The evidence against him is as follows:

1. John Bolton orchestrated the sacking of the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Jose Bustani. Bustani had offered to resolve the dispute over Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and therefore to avert armed conflict. He had offered to seek to persuade Saddam Hussein to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, which would mean that Iraq was then subject to weapons inspections by the OPCW. As the OPCW was not tainted by the CIA’s infiltration of UNSCOM, Bustani’s initiative had the potential to defuse the crisis over Saddam Hussein’s obstruction of UNMOVIC inspections.

Apparently in order to prevent the negotiated settlement that Bustani proposed, and as part of a common plan with other administration officials to prepare and initiate a war of aggression, in violation of international treaties, Mr Bolton acted as follows:

In March 2002 his office produced a ‘White Paper’ claiming that the OPCW was seeking an “inappropriate role” in Iraq.

On 20th March 2002 he met Bustani at the Hague to seek his resignation. Bustani refused to resign.

On 21st March 2002 he orchestrated a No-Confidence Motion calling for Bustani to resign as Director General which was introduced by the United States delegation. The motion failed.

On 22nd April 2002 the US called a special session of the conference of the States Parties and the Conference adopted the decision to terminate the appointment of the Director General effective immediately. Bolton had suggested that the US would withhold its dues from OPCW. The motion to sack Bustani was carried. Bustani asserts that this ‘special session’ was illegal, in breach of his contract and gave illegitimate grounds for his dismissal, stating a ‘lack of confidence’ in his leadership, without specific examples, and ignoring the failed No-Confidence vote.

In his book Surrender is Not an Option Mr Bolton describes his role in Bustani’s sacking (pages 95-98) and states the following:

“I directed that we begin explaining to others that the US contribution to the OPCW might well be cut if Bustani remained”.

“I met with Bustani to tell him he should resign … If he left now, we would do our best to give him ‘a gracious and dignified exit’. Otherwise we intended to have him fired”.

“I stepped in to tank the protocol, and then to tank Bustani”.

Bolton appears, in other words, to accept primary responsibility for Bustani’s dismissal.

Bustani appealed against the decision through the International Labour Organisation Tribunal. He was vindicated in his appeal and awarded his full salary and moral damages.

2. Mr Bolton helped to promote the false claim, through a State Department Fact Sheet, that Saddam Hussein had been seeking to procure uranium from Niger, as part of a common plan to prepare and initiate a war of aggression, in violation of international treaties.

The State Department Fact Sheet was released on the 19th December 2002 and was entitled ‘Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United States Security Council’ . Under the heading ‘Nuclear Weapons’ the fact sheet stated –

“The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.
Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?”

In a US Department of State press briefing on July 14th 2003 the spokesman Richard Boucher said “The accusation that turned out to be based on fraudulent evidence is that Niger sold uranium to Iraq” .

Bolton’s involvement in the use of fraudulent evidence is documented in Rep. Henry Waxman’s letter to Christopher Shays on the 1st March 2005. Waxman says “In April 2004, the State Department used the designation ‘sensitive but unclassified’ to conceal unclassified information about the role of John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, in the creation of a fact sheet distributed to the United Nations that falsely claimed that Iraq sought uranium from Niger”.

“Both State Department intelligence officials and CIA officials reported that they had rejected the claims as unreliable. As a result, it was unclear who within the State Department was involved in preparing the fact sheet”.

Waxman requested a chronology of how the Fact Sheet was developed. His letter states –

“This chronology described a meeting on December 18,2002, between Secretary Powell, Mr. Bolton, and Richard Boucher, the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Public Affairs. According to this chronology, Mr. Boucher specifically asked Mr. Bolton ‘for help developing a response to Iraq’s Dec 7 Declaration to the United Nations Security Council that could be used with the press.’ According to the chronology, which is phrased in the present tense, Mr. Bolton ‘agrees and tasks the Bureau of Nonproliferation,’ a subordinate office that reports directly to Mr. Bolton, to conduct the work.

“This unclassified chronology also stated that on the next day, December 19, 2003, the Bureau of Nonproliferation “sends email with the fact sheet, ‘Fact Sheet Iraq Declaration.doc,’” to Mr. Bolton’s office (emphasis in original). A second e-mail was sent a few minutes later, and a third e-mail was sent about an hour after that. According to the chronology, each version ‘still includes Niger reference.’ Although Mr. Bolton may not have personally drafted the document, the chronology appears to indicate that he ordered its creation and received updates on its development.”

Both these actions were designed to assist in the planning of a war of aggression. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that “to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime”.

Being that it’s an election year, you knew it was bound to happen. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has written an open letter to US soldiers asking that they stay out of politics this election season. Of course, Mullen didn’t say don’t vote, just don’t talk about it…

“As the nation prepares to elect a new president we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times. Keeping our politics private is a good first step. The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia.”

Support and defend the Constitution? That would imply exercising the Constitutional rights of every American, whether they’re in uniform or not. Soldiers might be in the unfortunate position of having to support the current, and disastrous, foreign policy initiatives of this administration, but it does not mean that they’ve forfeited the right to disagree with it.

If the defense of the Constitution is at all important, then ensuring that men and women in uniform can exercise their First Amendment rights to the fullest extent seems only logical. Unless, that is, Mullen’s use of the phrase “…support and defending the Constitution” is just patriotic zealotry employed to instill a sense of duty while detracting from the fact that the Constitution itself guarantees the rights of all Americans to express themselves freely.

Obviously Mullen’s words sit very uncomfortably with me, especially…

“The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times and in all ways. It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.”

In truth, the armed forces of the United States serve at the pleasure of the President through the approval of Congress, with the Secretary of Defense as an appointed civilian intermediary, making their use entirely political and wholly influenced by the foreign policy objectives of a specific administration, especially when it possesses a Congressional majority. While the people’s representatives have the ability to vote on whether the power to go to war can be furnished the Executive Branch, the reality is that the people do not have any real voice in the matter. We can pretend that that isn’t the case, that the public can apply pressure by lobbying their elected representatives, but the truth of the matter is that the game played in Washington is far more important than the concerns of constituents, and most in Congress adhere to the former before other considerations are taken into account. Note that I said most, not all.

Given the fact that the war in Iraq has lasted longer than The Second World War, and is the longest conflict fought since the Revolutionary War with an all volunteer army, it seems crucial to me that American service men and women should be politically active. In truth, the war in Afghanistan has now lasted seven years, three shy of America’s longest conflict, that being Vietnam, with the same distinction as that of Iraq – a war fought by an all volunteer force, one that has been pushed to its limits by an administration that knows all too well what would happen were a national draft to be instituted. That itself is a highly political matter, and one that US service men and women should most certainly be focused on.

To say that Admiral Mullen is out of line would be letting him off lightly. I would even go so far as to say that, in my opinion, not even Eisenhower, who was given supreme command of the most powerful army the world has ever seen, would have penned such a statement.

Mullen’s missive continues…

“I am not suggesting that military professionals abandon all personal opinions about modern social or political issues. What I am suggesting — indeed, what the nation expects — is that military personnel will, in the execution of the mission assigned to them, put aside their partisan leanings. Political opinions have no place in cockpit or camp or conference room.”

This passage is nothing more than the employment of the same tired rhetoric used by those that are unable to differentiate between supporting those who serve while, at the same time, disagreeing with the policy that has placed them in harms way.

What do partisan leanings have to do with anything? With regards to the war in Iraq, common military sense should be the order of the day, and given the quagmire that the United States currently finds itself in, common sense should have dictated, some time ago, that the military initiatives promoted by the Bush Administration were catastrophically flawed. The Armed Forces of the United States went and did the administration’s bidding despite that fact, and have been abused as an instrument of a wholly arrogant and morally corrupt foreign policy agenda. To not only think, but dare suggest, that US service men and women should not take that into account, should not talk about it freely and openly, is wholly contradictory to what Admiral Mullen has claimed they are fighting to protect.

Let every pilot, every gunner, and every foot soldier wear their beliefs where they will. If they’re to fight and die for something that promotes the protection and projection of that very virtue, then to suggest otherwise is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

Quote source: Thom Shanker, New York Times, May 26, 2008.

It’s no secret that former President Jimmy Carter has his detractors. His more recent attempts to confront the problems plaguing Israeli - Palestinian relations have drawn scorn from many quarters, with many labeling him anti-Israeli. And now, during remarks made at the recent Hay-on-Wye festival, he has done what no American President has ever dared to do – openly state that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.

Despite the fact that within the international intelligence community it is widely known that Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal that ranges somewhere between 100 to 300 weapons, no major Western power has ever broke faith with Israel’s official policy of claiming that they do not possess one.

The Whistleblower

The existence of Israel’s nuclear program was made public in 1986 by The Sunday Times who ran an exclusive story based on information provided them by Mordechai Vanunu, once a nuclear technician at Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center. Numerous leading nuclear weapons experts, including former nuclear weapons designers Theodore Taylor (US) and Frank Barnaby (UK), substantiated the information provided by Vanunu to The Times prior to the piece being published.

Vanunu had left Israel in 1985, disenfranchised with his work and personally tormented by the realization of what it was producing. He traveled to South East Asia for a time before briefly relocating in Australia where he met journalist Peter Hounam of The Times. In the fall of 1986, Vanunu left Australia for the UK, where he relayed his story to Hounam and also provided personal photographs he had taken while working at the site.

In late September of 1986, the Israeli Mossad employed a female agent posing as an American tourist to lure Vanunu out of the UK rather than directly involving the British government in his detention. Vanunu traveled with Cheryl Bentov, who was known to Vanunu as Cindy, to Rome, where he was seized by Mossad agents, drugged, and smuggled out of Italy on a freighter. Once in Israel he was tried in secret for treason and then spent a decade in solitary confinement. In all, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Vanunu was not executed because, according to former Mossad director Shabtai Shavit , “Jews do not do that to other Jews.”

After Vanunu’s release he did what any man of conscience would do – he spoke out again, reiterating his position on Israel’s secret program. Despite the fact that Vanunu’s knowledge of the program was by that time technically inconsequential, he was placed under house arrest. Following that, his movements would be restricted and he was closely watched.

On the 15th of this month…

“The Norwegian Lawyer’s Petition called on the Norwegian government to urgently implement a three-point action plan within the framework of international and Norwegian law, to grant Vanunu asylum and permission to work and stay in Norway.”

Vanunu had applied for asylum in Norway in 2004 following his release. It was later learned that while approval for his initial application for asylum was sought by then Prime Minister Kåre Willoch, it was ultimately rejected to protect Norwegian – Israeli relations.

There are those that consider Vanunu a traitor, just as there are those that considered Daniel Ellsberg a traitor. I believe that what Vanunu did was vital for Israeli democracy in that he revealed something not just to the world, but to the people of Israel itself that had been kept from them by their elected officials. Because no matter the reasons, disclosure is one of the most crucial elements in any true democracy.

That said; it would seem that ‘true’ democracy isn’t something that any of us are all that familiar with.

Flat Out Hypocrisy

According to the government of Israel, the State of Israel does not possess nuclear weapons, nor has it ever possessed them. That is, no matter how you slice it, a flat out lie. Were the same scrutiny applied to Israel as is being applied to Iran, the IAEA would quickly discover that the government of Israel has been lying for decades. And even if the UN were allowed to inspect Israeli facilities and found evidence of a nuclear weapons program, the truth is that not a damn thing would be done about it.

Now, ask yourself a question. How is it that one nation can get away with lying about the possession of a significant nuclear weapons program for decades while others are attacked relentlessly before proof even exists that they have one? Why is it that the UN’s watchdog can be set upon, for example, Iran or Syria, and not be equally persuaded to scrutinize Israel? Where exactly does that sort of hypocritical power and protectionism come from?

Before even entering into the corrupt and wholly one sided protectionist stance that the Western world provides Israel, let’s state the obvious excuses used by those that ignore blatant contradictions.

First, because of a mistranslation that was then used to produce sensational headlines the world over, the government of Iran has claimed that it wants to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map’. Of course, given their position on the existence of the Israeli state, the Iranians are easy targets. Mind you, that’s not to say that if some reasonable Israeli – Palestinian agreement could be reached that Iran wouldn’t ultimately back it, just that they’re viewed by most of the Western world as lacking what we refer to as ‘a sense of morality’. As far as we’re concerned they’re terrorist sympathizers and if they ever did get the bomb, would use it without hesitation or any consideration of the inevitable and utterly devastating consequences (I have written extensively about this subject, so use the search engine if you’d like to research past entries). Of course, throughout history, most of the world’s foremost powers have supported terrorist organizations, not to mention used militant groups and financial organizations to overthrow governments – such as the democratically elected government of Iran in the 50’s. But that’s of little consequence as it applies to the world post 9/11. The presentation of all things black and white to the public at large is a time honoured tradition, such as the removal of Mosaddeq in 1953 (Operation Ajax). He dared to attempt to nationalize the Iranian oil industry and for that he was painted a Communist by the West and removed from power. The Shah was then reinstated and British Petroleum’s stranglehold over Iran’s oil conveniently continued.

The support of military proxies, whether large or small, is nothing new. Israel represents such a proxy with regards to Western interests in the region, its nuclear arsenal included. It is a nation whose transgressions are widely overlooked while the transgressions of others are not, a hypocrisy that continues unabated precisely because of foreign interests and the protections that they are able to provide.

On September 11th one of the most repeated questions was - “why do they hate us?” The answer to that question, while technically complex, can also be viewed in a rather simplistic light. What have we done in the Middle East in a spirit of equality that has ever provided counter balance? The reality is – nothing. We have exploited natural resources, supported despotic regimes when they have suited out purposes, such as that of Saddam Hussein, and watched from the sidelines while such support has led to the degradation and suffering of societies. We then have the gall to claim that we champion freedom and represent beacons of global liberty and conscience. To think that those watching on the other side of the fence aren’t aware of our hypocrisy is more than ignorant. And, if we’re to cut the shit and be honest with ourselves, the people of New York and Washington paid for it seven years ago. And since then, troops involved in the subsequent wars promoted and produced in the wake of 9/11, along with countless civilians, have been made to suffer the fruits of that ignorance as well.

Why do they hate us? It is, in truth, more a question of why we believe we have the right to play God with others? And that’s not merely limited to Western powers, but others as well. The answer to that question is as old as the ages – arrogance bolstered by economic power and military might. That is the foundation on which every major empire in human history has sat, and the very same that always, without exception, has cracked and ultimately crumbled under the weight of its own excesses and senses of invulnerability and superiority.

Jimmy

So President Carter did the unthinkable – he spoke the truth. In doing so he will be labeled numerous things I imagine. This is, of course, the same President who was in power during the 444 days of the Iranian hostage crisis, and who, despite that experience, is currently urging the US to start talking to the Iranians rather than continuing their current policy of isolationism.

I’ll not deny that I believe Carter to be one of the better Presidents in US history. Despite those things that plagued his one term in office, he remains a man of considerable worth to the cause of repairing the damage done by the Bush Administration with regards to global perceptions of the United States. I am also one of those ‘nut jobs’ that believes the claims of former Reagan White House staff member Barbara Honegger, not to mention those of former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, that the October Surprise was not fantasy.

If the Israelis can still claim, with a straight face, that they don’t have a nuclear weapons program (and get away with it) then I see no reason to start discounting something as plausible as the October Surprise, despite the conclusions of investigations to the contrary.

If you were looking for a fine example of ridiculousness today, look no further than the words of Stephen Mull, the US State Department’s acting assistant secretary for political-military affairs.

Yesterday, Mull made the following comment with regards to those nations currently participating at a conference in Dublin where representatives from more than 100 nations are working to craft a treaty to ban the use, production, stockpile, and sale of Cluster Bombs…

“This would have very grave implications. With one stroke, any country that signs the convention as it is now and ratifies it, in effect would make it impossible for the United States or any of our other allies who rely on these weapons to participate in these humanitarian exercises.”

So, for example, were Brazil to sign the treaty and a massive natural disaster were to devastate part of that country, Mull is basically saying that the United States would not offer humanitarian assistance because of Brazil’s stance on the United States’ refusal to stop producing, using, selling, and stockpiling Cluster Bomb munitions.

Even more – Canada is also represented at the conference and is one of the key nations, along with France and Germany, expected to play a role in swaying the UK’s position on the treaty.

So what if a part of this nation were devastated by a natural disaster? What if my hometown were to be rocked by the long awaited earthquake that we’ve been expecting for basically my entire lifetime? Canada is America’s foremost trading partner, not to mention the fact that after Katrina hit, members of my hometown’s emergency response team were there and helping people before their American counterparts even showed up. So much so, in fact, that various neighbourhoods were awash in Canadian flags as a show of gratitude.

What then, Mr. Mull? Are we on our own because we dared to stand with others and say that the use, production, stockpile, and sale of one of the most despicable conventional weapons in the world should be banned?

Given FEMA’s reposnse to Katrina, and the Bush Administration’s mishandling of the disaster, what of the outpouring of support from other countries, even those the United States government considers enemies, such as Cuba and Venezuela? Do you not think that by taking such a ridiculous position that further isolating the United States from those that, in times of disaster, are willing to forego ideological differences to lend their support is a good idea?

Arrogance knows no bounds, it seems. And all over a bloody bomb.