So the Presidential conventions are at an end. Now we just have to painfully sit through two months of media speculation and, of course, the debates, before we’re treated to a result.

I don’t rightly know what my reaction will be if John McCain wins the White House, thought it will certainly include a considerable loss of respect for those that chose to maintain what I believe to be an immensely dangerous political status quo. That’s not to say that I believe Barack Obama to be a saviour, but if he wins it will at least signal to the world that the majority of Americans haven’t completely lost their minds.

Canadians will also be going to the polls this fall, though I have little stomach for it. The state of Canadian politics is so thin that it’s hard to place faith in any of this nation’s leaders. Not unlike the state of affairs south of the border, we find ourselves in a vacuum in which the lesser of evils is largely perceived to be the best of options. As far as I’m concerned, such an outlook betrays the principles that we as a nation believe in. Surely, somewhere out there, there must be an individual worth their words, one that is more than just the construct of crafted language. It is difficult to believe in the system when all it produces is straw men, those that endeavor to placate the public when an election is called and then conveniently forget everything that slipped out between the forced smiles on their faces when the results are in.

Democracy is an antiquated ideology. It has been corrupted almost since its inception by the plutocratic, rendering it nothing more than a mechanism that ensures public docility through the belief that the people ultimately control their own destiny. That mechanism has gifted an elite segment of democratic populations the ability to continue to use the concept of democracy itself as a shield against their corruption of its ideals, all the while guarded against true public discontent because of the widespread misconception that the people are the true arbiters of power.

Were the people to throw off the yoke of what has become nothing more than ideological propaganda, the result would be the demise of the system that we now endure. As to what would occur after that I cannot say, but such an occurrence is something that scares the living hell out of those that depend on this current state of mass manipulation, and so ensuring its survival is something that is of the utmost importance.

Ultimately, though able to order pizzas at 3am and get the Playboy channel beamed into our homes, we are not truly free. We are cattle that exist to maintain economies, to support that which we are taught to support, and are derided for questioning that which we have been told not to question. Democracy is, in truth, the greatest scam every unleashed in history simply because, on the surface, it provides luxuriant distractions that convolute the perceptions of those that dwell within its comfortable bosom. It provides in its current context the most elaborately designed groundwork for the usurpation of liberty simply because it espouses the assurance of it. I am sure, even in his wildest dreams, that that is not something that even Joseph Goebbels could have thought possible.

One minute you’re eating your oatmeal, the next minute you’re not. One minute you’re walking down the street, the next minute you’re just another statistic that the world doesn’t want to hear about because there are already far too many statistics.

In a letter to James Madison in early 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote - “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” Truer words were never spoken, and one wonders where that spirit has gone. It seems to me that four decades ago the world was on fire with thought, on fire with discussion, and venturing out in bold social directions because of injustices and hypocrisies faced. Indeed, the time was ripe for a little rebellion, though, in my opinion, it was never truly capitalized on.

Here we find ourselves four decades later, a hundred years and more after a century that saw the birth of some of the most radical thought in human history, in an era replete with the abuse of power, of premeditated wars, of genocides that are all but ignored, and you could, for all intents and purposes, hear a pin drop.

That’s not to say that there haven’t been a few glimmers of hope. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, more people protested against it on a global scale than at any time in human history. Unfortunately, once it began, that level of enthusiasm vanished. And while there are countless global initiatives focused on a wide range of issues, such as the genocide occurring in Darfur, there doesn’t seem to be any immediacy or impassioned defiance involved. We have, in many ways, come to view outrage as something best limited to those parameters perceived to be ‘workable’, and in doing so have considerably diminished our own sense of power.

No government on earth can quell or contain a populist movement once it begins in earnest. They may delay it for a time, they might even use force to deter it, but if the people possess unyielding conviction then there is no power on earth that can stop them. Because for every gun held in the hands of a government soldier, there are thousands beyond to remove that weapon. A clip only holds so many bullets, and certainly not a thousand of them. To combat a population to such a degree as to use lethal force to its fullest extent cannot even stop a people united. It may destroy them, but it cannot defeat their desire to see change affected. For with the decimation of the people comes the reality that there is nothing to govern save empty, charred earth.

To confront the status quo is to confront the proposition that conveniences and comforts will be lost in the process if real change is to occur. It means that the very lifestyle that we cling to has to be brought into question and examined for what it truly is – a mechanism of control, one that survives primarily through the exploitation of others secured in a variety of ways.

We live in free societies, yet do not have access to unspotted information. We live in free societies in which conflicts can be justified using the very same methods employed by those that we historically view as vile. We live in free societies in which dissent is viewed as unpatriotic forgetting that in the context of such societies it is the one element that must never be forsaken.

If we can put a man on the moon, look at the surface of other planets using robots, and create weapons that have the ability to destroy the world if used in number, then we have the ability to affect change. For if our greatest accomplishments are limited to the scope of the former, then the latter becomes our greatest failure - the insurance of the demise of freedom itself.

To be honest, I could probably go on for days about the betrayal of those in New Orleans that have been entirely screwed over by the government, be it local or federal, and the way in which they have been treated while simply attempting to enact their most basic of rights. But the truth is that it so sickens me that every time I attempt to address it I revert to employing expletives every other word. Thus, I will just quote Bill Quigley’s piece on Truthout from last Friday…

“In a remarkable symbol of the injustices of post-Katrina reconstruction, hundreds of people were locked out of a public New Orleans City Council meeting addressing demolition of 4,500 public housing apartments. Some were tasered, many pepper sprayed and a dozen arrested.

Outside the chambers, iron gates were chained and padlocked even before the scheduled start.

The scene looked like one of those countries on TV that is undergoing a people’s revolution - and the similarities were only beginning.

Dozens of uniformed police secured the gates and other entrances. Only developers and those with special permission from council members were allowed in - the rest were kept locked outside the gates. Despite dozens of open seats in the council chambers, pleas to be allowed in were ignored.

Chants of “Housing is a human right!” and “Let us in!” thundered through the concrete breezeway.

Public housing residents came and spoke out despite an intense campaign of intimidation. Residents were warned by phone that if they publicly opposed the demolitions they would lose all housing assistance. Residents opposed to the demolition had simple demands. If the authorities insisted on spending hundreds of millions to tear down hundreds of structurally sound buildings containing 4,500 public housing subsidized apartments, there should be a guarantee that every resident could return to a similarly subsidized apartment. Alternatively, the government should use the hundreds of millions to repair the apartments so people could come home. Neither alternative was acceptable to HUD. A plan of residents to partner with the AFL-CIO Housing Trust to save their homes was also ignored.

Outside, SWAT team members and police in riot gear and on horses began to arrive as rain started falling. Those locked out included public housing residents, a professor from Southern University, graduate students, the Episcopal bishop of Louisiana, ministers, lawyers, law students, homeless people who lived in tents across the street from City Hall, affordable housing allies from across the country and dozens of others.”

If that snippet wasn’t enough to enrage you, perhaps this will…

I don’t know about you, but the scenes in that video do not depict an event that one would attribute to a nation, or a portion thereof, that claims itself the foremost democracy on the planet. In fact, it looks more like the last ditch efforts of a few brave souls attempting to futilely counteract the beginnings of a neo-fascist trend that is becoming commonplace in the United States with regards to how the public is treated when it dares to represent itself in a dissenting fashion. And to think that the government of the United States feels it has the right to, by comparison to itself, condemn others.

From The Boston Globe…

“More than a dozen members of an antiwar veterans group were arrested yesterday as they protested the exclusion of their message from Boston’s Veterans Day parade.Members of Veterans for Peace lined up in front of a podium at City Hall Plaza holding antiwar placards, as color guards from Massachusetts military units and JROTC bands from across the state filed into Government Center for a ceremony, sponsored by the American Legion, to honor veterans after the parade. Some protesters wore gags, which they later said symbolized the fact that, while they were permitted to march in the parade, they were prevented from carrying signs opposing the war in Iraq.

“We were exercising our First Amendment rights,” said Winston Warfield of Dorchester, a member of the group. “The First Amendment protects free speech, even when you don’t agree with what’s being said.”

When Boston police asked the demonstrators to move from the front of the podium so that the Veterans Day services could continue, they refused. As the Boston Firemen’s Band played The Marine Hymn, several protesters were placed in plastic handcuffs and led away.

“Our free speech and civil rights are being abridged here,” said Nate Goldschlag, a Vietnam-era veteran who was among those standing in front of the podium. “We are veterans, too, and we should be allowed to express our opposition to this war.”

It is important to recognize the distinction between dissent in a democracy and dissent in a militarized society. The former ensures the protection of rights under the law; the latter ensures the protection of whatever mythology exists to safeguard its power. Both cannot exist simultaneously. One must ultimately have control over the other.

In the last entry I made about the practice of waterboarding, it was pointed out that the technique has been used in the past in the training of US special forces. The purpose of its role in their training being to help them resists interrogation by way of torture. From an article in today’s Independent entitled Waterboarding is torture - I did it myself, says US advisor, comes the following paragraph…

“In a further embarrassment for Mr Bush yesterday, Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice. He revealed that waterboarding is used in training at the US Navy’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego, and claimed to have witnessed and supervised “hundreds” of waterboarding exercises. Although these last only a few minutes and take place under medical supervision, he concluded that “waterboarding is a torture technique – period”.

Tomorrow is Remembrance Day. Like many other Canadian families, members of my own participated in the war – my grandfather and two great uncles. On the 11th of November we remember the sacrifices made by those that fought in the major wars of the last century, the most devastating and globally impacting of those being the Second World War.

During that war, both the Japanese and the Gestapo, the German secret police, employed the practice of waterboarding. At its conclusion, those guilty of such practices were tried for war crimes. At that time, the United States considered the practice to be torture.

Given the gravity of what tomorrow represents, I find it reprehensible that a debate about this subject even exists and that the practice is even employed. If anything, the actions of the United States and its allies in the War On Terror, Canada included, demonstrates that when you are the victors of one of the world’s greatest conflicts, it’s easy to write the rules of condemnation and, at the same time, dismiss them when they are applicable to yourself – no matter how much time has passed.

We are not afforded the luxury to mourn the fallen tomorrow and, at the same time, claim that times have changed and that the morality and sacrifice that we reverently observe on November 11th cannot be tarnished by the employment of practices that are entirely counter to the hopes of those that laid down their lives. To do so not only dishonours them; but renders their sacrifice, and the belief that it helped protect something sacred, moot.

We are arrogant; there is no denying that. Our crimes are not crimes because we are the judge and jury of the world. To admit to criminality is to admit that that which we promote as the pinnacle of civility is little more than a fraud – which it most certainly, and always has, been. In the end, given the existence of places such as Guantanamo, of secret Black Sites, of what has occurred at prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the practice of Rendition, we have become no better than those that our now celebrated dead once fought to wipe from the face of the earth.

Perhaps that is why we cling to the past, to the remembrance of those that fell. Perhaps, somewhere sleeping within us, we still realize that the true purpose of their sacrifice was to ensure that we, the people, retained the right to ensure that such things could never be done in our name, that we remained free from that which gripped the world all those years ago – fascism.

Make no mistake, fascism is not an ideology that is limited to set parameters. Given the right conditions it can rise in even the most liberal of nations. In truth, its seeds grow far faster, and far less recognized, in such soil. The belief that decency and greatness resides at the core of a society is precisely what it requires to flourish, for only then can it be justified in times of fear, uncertainty, and strife. It is only where the free can be convinced to give up their freedoms that the specter of fascism can be found. It is only when those that profess to champion justice, equality, and liberty turn to the employment of torture that the roots of fascism begin to take hold.

Sixty-two years ago the Second World War ended. At its conclusion, more lives were lost in those short years than at any other point in human history. During that war, men of this nation, and others, fought against a global tyranny that threatened those principles that we now claim to champion. Therefore, tomorrow our duty is not wholly to remember the individuals that sacrificed themselves for the continued existence of those principles, but the principles themselves. And in doing so, we should be ashamed that we have allowed them to be tarnished, that we have become apathetic with regards to their execution, and that we have wrapped ourselves in our own mythology to such an extent that we have almost become unfamiliar with what they represent.

This is not a nation under one God. It is a nation in which its people have the right to worship whatever God they chose knowing that church and state remain separate. This is a nation in which the colour of your skin, or your ethnic background, should not be cause for suspicion. It is one in which all people, no matter their background, come together to constitute what we call Canada.

But most of all – this is a nation. It is not a convenient military or political proxy for the benefit of others. It is not a nation that is so insignificant that it must bend to the will of greater powers to feel significant. This is a nation that, throughout the course of modern events, has more to be proud of than ashamed – and even then, one that should have the decency to address its misgivings and make amends.

It is time that the people of this country realized that, lest this not be a nation. For if we are incapable of that realization, then those that sacrificed themselves for it will be marginalized to the point of becoming little more than statues in park squares and in front of government buildings that are pointed to when the need arises to justify the diminishment of our freedoms rather than being symbols of why we possess them.

I think this story by Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman symbolizes something very dark in the evolving American landscape. Art has always played a crucial role in reflecting the realities of a country, and in some nations it has cost those who have dared to produce art that challenges the status quo their freedom, even their lives.

Obviously the young people of Wilton High School in Connecticut, who performed the play “Voices in Conflict” last night in an off-Broadway theatre, aren’t going to find themselves in Gulags for having the courage not to abandon the production and perform it outside of their High School, where it was banned by the school’s Principal in March. But then again, the silencing of voices, especially those of dissent, commonly begins in the most benign of ways. In a nation whose founding document guarantees the right of freedom of expression, one has to ask why a High School Principal was allowed to usurp it? That, in and of itself, should be the primary focus of this story, not necessarily the content of the play.

As Amy Goodman points out in her article, the performance brought many in the audience to tears, and when the students of Wilton High completed the performance, they received a standing ovation.

We live in a hyper sensitive age, one largely manufactured by the ripple effects of 9/11. The boogie man of our youths no longer resides in our closets or under our beds, but in our State Houses and Legislatures. His face is that of television news personalities, of soulless politicians, of fanatical religious leaders, and those captains of industry that would have us believe that profit is for the betterment of the planet while the only ‘improvement’ of note is the increase of their wealth.

We have been transformed into a people that have become suspicious of those of foreign descent, no matter how long they may have been our neighbours, no matter how many generations of their families have known generations of ours. We have allowed ourselves to be manipulated into thinking that we are losing some intrinsic part of ourselves, our supposed religious foundations even though we inhabit nations that, since their inceptions, have firmly and unequivocally been steeped in the separation of church and state. After the impact of those two planes six years ago, we have willfully and, for the most part, silently embraced the restriction of those principles that we have championed for centuries, that our leaders, to this very day, use as cause to act aggressively around the world.

No, there are no Gulags in the harsh wildernesses of Alaska or the barrens of Labrador. In truth, there need not be. We, without the desire to self sacrifice to protect that which we must either wholly stand for or abandon for all time, have built them within ourselves instead.

Thus, the time has come to either rob the boogie man of the keys or suffer the fate of every ‘great’ civilization that has come before us for millennia. In truth, our downfall is assured no matter, only the aftermath of its implication remains. One would hope, when that moment arrives, that we will be ‘civilized’ enough to act accordingly and not look to our self destruction because we refused to confront our self delusion.

If freedom is worth fighting for, then surely peace is its greatest vice.

Since the end of the Second World War, every conflict that the West has involved itself in has been justified by claiming it necessary to safeguard freedom and liberty. Of them, how many have?

It could be argued that the Cold War was fought in numerous ways to protect the free world from the ravages of Communism. Interestingly, there are only a handful of examples that the West can point to as actual successes in that regard, Afghanistan being one of them. But even then, one must examine the aftermath of that victory with regards to current global events.

The Korean War failed in its purpose, as did Vietnam. In fact, during the Cold War, not one hot war resulted in what could be considered a victory against what the West perceived as their global enemy. On the other hand, covert operations, employing unethical methods and pay-rolling murderers and radicals, tended to produce far better results. Afghanistan falls into that category being that those who supported the Mujahideen and The Northern Alliance in their struggle against the Soviets never involved themselves militarily. They acted as financiers, advisors, and gunrunners - nothing more. And, of course, Afghanistan is not the only example of this method being employed. Western powers have colluded with a variety of groups and individuals whose ideologies were, and are, entirely counter to the principles of freedom and liberty. In the context of covert operations, the goal is not to promote an ideology, rather to ensure that those you oppose are dealt with by whatever means necessary, and that you protect your interests no matter who happens to be willing to secure them.

In truth, that is the global legacy of the West in the latter half of the 20th century. Those conflicts that have involved sacrificial lambs of our own are not what are commonly referred to by others abroad when they attack Western complicity, or, for that matter, Soviet complicity. Their primary source of animosity lay in what the general public knows little of, the secret actions undertaken by their own governments and the ramifications that they have had abroad.

While there are numerous examples that can be sited, Chile provides an adequate demonstration.

The Nixon administration worked diligently to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende, their reasons being the usual – he threatened to nationalize aspects of Chilean industry. The result was, of course, the eventual seizure of power by General Augusto Pinochet, whose regime was responsible for mass human rights violations during his tenure as the head of the country’s military junta. Thousands disappeared during the Pinochet era, tens of thousands were jailed and tortured, others were simply disposed of, and all of it was overlooked by the United States who supported Pinochet’s economic reforms (see: Chicago Boys) and enjoyed continued access to Chilean markets. Of course, Allende was a member of Chile’s Socialist Party, and therefore provided ample cause for alarm.

All of that said, who is Chile’s current President? Well, it so just so happens that it’s Michelle Bachelet, the leader of - you guessed it - Chile’s Socialist Party.

Many Chileans have not forgotten Pinochet’s silent partner, nor their hypocrisy. Because while 30,000 Chileans were forced to flee Chile for their lives after the coup that placed the junta in power, the American people, even disenfranchised by the Vietnam War, still believed that theirs was a country that stood for something other than aiding and abetting murderers. It is also very important to remember that Allende’s government was, by no means, a pawn of the USSR. Afghanistan, on the other hand, was, prior to their invasion of it in 1979.

Pin The Tail On The Donkey

What do we possess that compels us to think it applicable the world over? If it’s the perceived enjoyment of living in free societies then, I’m afraid, it’s time we saw an optometrist. The truth is that our own freedoms aren’t even of serious import to us. Were they, we would be far more vigilant than we are, far more critical of government, and even more critical of the use of military force, let alone our own apathy. Any society that claims itself free and possesses the ability to influence government, because the citizenry represents the true base of power, does not offer up excuses as to why it cannot be vigilant. Because that is only the freedom to be ignorant, a liberty that has come to supercede all others in our society.

In the struggle to maintain that which we claim to hold dearest, our freedom, we have only exercised our right to embrace ignorance on unprecedented levels while turning our backs on the very rights that we possess to ensure that our freedoms cannot be diminished. We are, in a sentence, the authors of our own undoing. Reason, it seems, has no place with us.

On September 10th, 2001, how many Canadians cared about Afghanistan, the plight of its people, its government, or how much Naan bread was going for in the typical Afghan market? Who even really cared about poppy production?

Be honest with yourself – very few.

And yet, by the 1st of October, 2001, it became a target the size of the sun itself, the lean-to of international terrorism, a country tyrannically governed by the very same radical despotic regime that a month earlier few even knew about, let alone cared about. But because of the trauma caused us by the attacks of 9/11, reason was thrown out the window in favour of something far more comfortable – vengeance, which, not surprisingly, is steeped in the ease of ignorance.

On that terrible day in 2001, not one Afghan national took part in the attacks. That didn’t matter, mind you, because the author of the attacks had been a guest of the country’s government since his expulsion from Sudan, and therefore it seemed only logical that military action against Afghanistan was warranted. On the 12th of September, 2001, President Bush declared that the attacks themselves represented an act of war, even though no nation, and I emphasize ‘nation’, had declared war on the United States following them.

Of the 19 hijackers, 15 of them were Saudi. Of the remaining four, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was Egyptian, and one was Lebanese. None of the men were members of the Taliban, none of them were Afghans, and in no way did the attacks that day constitute an act of war on Afghanistan’s behalf because only three countries in the world even recognized the Taliban as the country’s legitimate government, all three of which – The United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia – also supplied them aid.

Given that, a few contradictions should be noted:

Saudi Arabia, during the reign of the Taliban, afforded the United States military bases and purchased arms from them. This, of course, was the same government that exiled Osama Bin Laden for his views, but would eventually recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, the very regime that Bin Laden helped finance.

Following the attacks of 9/11, Pakistan conveniently became an ally in the new War On Terror, their past support for the Taliban quickly fading from memory. The United States was afforded military accommodations in Pakistan from which to launch operations against Afghanistan while it’s President, General Pervez Musharraf, lied to the Pakistani people about the financial costs incurred during Operation Enduring Freedom.

The United Arab Emirates is home to the USAF’s Al Dhafra Air Base, from which U-2 and Global Hawk flights operated during OEF.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Afghanistan was the perfect target - one of the poorest countries in the world, little to no conventional military might to speak of, and politically fractured. Of course, the author of the attacks, who would initially deny involvement only to be contradicted by video tapes found in a house by US troops on which he displayed foreknowledge of them, was also there and had colluded with the country’s radical regime – one which the United States itself did not recognize as the official government of the country, though that would not stop them from taking the position that 9/11 constituted an act of war against the United States and that Afghanistan could be held responsible because of the Taliban’s relationship with al-Qaeda’s leadership.

It is here that the disconnect occurs.

How does one hold a nation responsible for the actions of a radical group within it? In the eyes of the United States, and many others, Afghanistan was a nation still in the midst of civil war, as the Northern Alliance was still resisting the Taliban. Thus, if one faction within a nation has benefited from the financial assistance of a radical organization, as the Taliban did, how do the attacks of 9/11 constitute an act of war against the United States by the nation of Afghanistan? Further to that, if a nation such as Saudi Arabia, from which most of the hijackers came, and who recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government, can’t be viewed as suspect, then how could Afghanistan, as a whole, be?

The answer is – it couldn’t.

The reality is that we did nothing to sort out the puzzle pieces, nor did we bother trying to entertain the fact that there might exist complexities that would make the matter less direct. The enemy was in Afghanistan, a little under 3,000 people had just perished in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, so Afghanistan would be made to pay.

And pay it has.

Price Tags And Body Bags

As I write this, combat operations in Afghanistan have taken the lives of 55 of our countrymen. Their sacrifice has been spun to legendary proportions by those that would use their deaths for the purpose of justifying our presence there. It is not wrong to honour them, nor their commitment to our country, but it falls to those left behind to look beyond their singular role at the larger picture. Because if we fail to do so, if we’re to simply buy into the solemnity of their sacrifice, then we dishonour not only them, but that for which they perceived to fight – freedom.

Canadians should make no mistake, we are a country at war. And in doing so must also realize that the war in which we are involved does not deter those that might seek to attack us using unconventional means. If anything, it provides them justification and heightened motivation. When dealing with terrorism, as the British can well attest, containment is not something that works with regards to deterring terrorist attacks. Were that the case, their presence in Northern Ireland would have resulted in decreasing IRA bombings in England, something that it did not do. If anything, it only increased operations outside of Northern Ireland.

The simplicity given the face of the enemy in Afghanistan is a weapon, not a fact. While Canadian forces face a revitalized Taliban bolstered by newcomers that have hitched their wagons to the Taliban’s horse because of their desire to see their country rid of foreign occupation, they do not represent those that planned or carried out the attacks of September 11th. In all probability, those of that ilk that remain have long since fled into Pakistan where they are most likely being sheltered by the likes of the Pakistani ISI and those sympathetic to their cause. Thus, we are not fighting in Afghanistan to disenthrall those responsible for 9/11, only what remains of the largely unrecognized governing regime that existed prior to the invasion. And even though that regime was supported by Osama Bin Laden, along with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (now both allies in the War On Terror), it has been able to sustain itself despite the presence of Western forces and the continued operations of their Northern Alliance allies. That is not to say that theirs is an ideology that isn’t irreprehensible, only that the realities of that ideology are often overlooked by those struggling against what they perceive as foreign invaders, and that that fact should not be disregarded. There is a reason why Hamid Karzai is referred to as ‘The Mayor of Kabul’, and it has everything to do with the ineffectuality of his government and the process that led to its formation, a process hurriedly undertaken to gratify our own sense of accomplishment rather than one that took into account the long-term effects that it might have on the Afghan psyche regarding the virtues of the democratic process.

Freedom, you see, is not something definable by a single people’s view, despite the definition available in your dictionary. It is, like most things, a complicated matter that involves a myriad of factors dependant on culture, religion, and history. To force the world to conform to a single understanding of the term will only produce resistance, not magically open eyes that will suddenly see the relevance of having a McDonald’s on every second corner. Freedom, in the context of a national movement, has to be something sought by those that would have a government created to represent its application. It is not something that can be forced on a people who have had no populist stake in the struggle for it. Ironic as it may seem, most would fight for the right to retain their own bad government than see a foreign power instill one, no matter how it is packaged and sold them. NATO’s current struggle against the Taliban is representative of this in that it has attracted support from amongst those that view their struggle not entirely as a radically religious one, but one of self determination.

Layer Cake

As Jim Miles recently pointed out in an article about Linda McQuaig’s book Holding the Bully’s Coat – Canada and the U.S. Empire…

“The first chapter covers a series of mini-themes that exposes the American empire at the same time implicating Canada in its complicity with American actions. Familiar topics arise with Canada as they do with America abroad in the world: Canada’s recent implicit support of torture in Afghanistan by ‘rendering’ prisoners to Afghanis bases; military plans of attack, in this case against Canadian the 1930’s, such that it would cause “devastation” and include “chemical warfare”; a view of American “exceptionalism”, another word for ignoring international norms, laws and institutions (illegal wars, torture, nuclear weapons double standards, UN, ICC, Kyoto, ICJ, Biological weapons); in other words a generalized withdrawal from international law and conventions.

McQuaig recognizes the incongruity of the U.S. “defending” itself against many created foes, focussing her arguments on the Persian Gulf, reiterating the American tale of woe about “vulnerability”, of America being under attack. While the majority of Canadians do not want to be a part of this militaristic exceptionalism, the “media, academic and corporate worlds – pander to Washington.” The elite see Canada as a renewed power, as an energy superpower, but what sort of superpower would give all its energy resources to another country before its own needs are guaranteed, leading to the author’s conclusion that Canada would not be viewed “with anything but contempt, as the bully’s unctuous [great choice of word – “simulation of affected enthusiasm” based on the root meaning of anointed with oil] little sidekick.”

Oil and free market economics flow via the Canadian elites “fiercely resisting such [social] planning in the Canadian national interest.” As Canada’s social services diminish and its resources are sold off liberally and cheaply, the reality is that “there is little connection between a country’s level of social spending and its ability to compete in the global economy.” Examples are evident for this, with Norway being the most successful, and with the countries of Latin America slowly turning away from the disastrously imposed free market policies.

In the second chapter, “No More Girlie-Man for Peacekeeping” the Canadian popular view of peacekeeping is explored, again exposing the elites, in this case Canada’s own copycat military-industrial-political he-man alliance, as manipulating events towards the American pre-emptive war attitude that searches out strategic control of oil and gas resources, hidden behind the hunt for terrorism, as “America’s vigilance against terrorism…just happens to coincide with its need for oil.” Once again the media come into the picture, a poorly defined picture of “distortion” that has “rendered the suffering of the Arab world invisible to us.” What is viewed in the west is far different than the view seen by others, “the ultimate horror of occupation: the powerlessness of an occupied people against an all-powerful foreign army.”

The argument then turns fully to Afghanistan where Canada is an invading army (and for those Canadian politicians ignorant of the role of oil in Afghanistan, it is a focal point for oil trans-shipment as well as having significant reserves of gas in its north-western provinces in the Caspian Basin), that has committed war crimes by “rendition” and the “collateral damage” of killed citizens. She concludes the section posing the question of security, “Because we realize our security is not actually at stake, and we sense that there is no compelling purpose to this mission….We’re not aggressors [arguable, but perhaps only semantic]. We’re just helping out the aggressor in order to protect our trade balance.”

In summary, McQuaig concludes that “Powerful forces inside the Canadian elite want to move Canada not only away from peacekeeping – as they’ve already succeeding in doing- but also away from an allegiance to the United Nations and the rule of law.” This is a strong statement that Canadians and the world need to be fully aware of.”

No Canadian should ever overlook the importance of those factors that have shaped Canadian foreign policy over the last six years with regards to our cooperation with US foreign policy objectives and the reasons for it. Nor should they take at face value the simplest of explanations regarding our collusion. It has become far too easy to manipulate public opinion, and if one need proof of just how easy it is, look no further than the removal of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004 and our role in it…

“Many of the supporters of the Famni Lavalas party and Aristide, as well as progressive and independent observers worldwide, denounced the rebellion as a foreign controlled coup d’etat orchestrated by Canada, France and the United States (Goodman, et al, 2004) to remove a publicly elected President.

The argument is that the governments of the United States, France and Canada were interested in the removal of Aristide from power because of his populist tendencies. For example, in 2003, Canada hosted a meeting of Haïtian opposition leaders called the Ottawa Initiative which concluded that “Aristide must go”. At the same time, the United States, France and Canada were funding the rebel groups, via opposition NGOs and the International Republican Institute, and provided the necessary military and logistic support for the rebellion. Rebel leader Guy Philippe has been trained by U.S. forces and had been on the CIA payroll. Other prominent rebel figures had also been previously trained by the U.S. despite their participation in previous rebellions and terrorist acts with some living in the U.S” (Wikipedia)

As far as The Ottawa Initiative is concerned, you might be surprised to discover…

“The Ottawa Initiative on Haiti or simply the Ottawa Initiative, was a conference that took place in Montreal on 31 January and 1 February 2003, to decide the future of Haiti’s government, though no Haitian government officials were invited. The conference was attended by Canadian, French, and U.S. and Latin American officials. What exactly transpired is difficult to say, since Canada is keeping the documents that came out of this conference secret.” (Wikipedia)

When asked during an interview with Naomi Klein for The Nation why he was removed from power, Aristide responded - privatization, privatization, and privatization.

We were, of course, sold a different story. An age old story that involved freedom fighters and an emerging despot that threatened freedom itself. And most Canadians, those who even knew about it, bought that version of events.

This, of course, exemplifies our right to be freely ignorant rather than employing vigilance with regards to the principles that we are so often eager to champion at the drop of a hat. In such cases, we do not examine our own complicity as citizens of a nation whose government would act illegally, and in doing so have helped create a reality in which government doesn’t hope to succeed in avoiding condemnation but relies on public apathy to ensure that those undertakings that are suspect are never widely examined. And those that do bother to point fingers are easily dismissed as a variety of things, from radicals to hippies and so forth.

Afghanistan is, of course, no different. With regards to the recent scandal involving the rendition of detainees to Afghan authorities known for their use of torture, the public was diverted away from two very important truths – that members within our government and military were aware of it, and that despite knowing did nothing serious to deter it until it became news. Of course, when it did become news, it was challenged by claims that by debating the issue Canadians were somehow undermining our troops and emboldening the enemy, that to attempt to critically examine what had occurred and who knew about it was entirely counter to our military efforts.

Now I ask you, is it not our democratic duty to debate this topic? Is it not the right of every Canadian from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland to look at the realities of this issue without it being impressed upon them that to do so for more than five minutes is somehow detrimental those fighting in Afghanistan to supposedly ensure that Afghans have that very right?

Furthermore, for the sake of the integrity of our democracy, is it not our responsibility to hold those responsible accountable and have them removed from their various offices and commands? Unfortunately, as long as our love affair with the right to be freely ignorant continues, we remain a reliable horse on which to bet.

In all probability, Canadian troops, under the same make-shift banner of half-assed legitimacy, will remain in Afghanistan for years to come. Public opinion will, of course, only be swayed once the body count reaches a significant enough level to cause alarm, and by then who knows whether the showcase democracy gifted it will still be around, or whether, like the Russians and the British before us, we will find ourselves trapped in a foreign land fighting a determined enemy that has always been willing to give up more for their cause than those that have always arrogantly believed otherwise.

The lesson of 9/11 will never be learned because to admit that it was a lesson is to admit something that we simply never will. That what we do for our own benefit, projected in the diminishing light of our own freedom, has been responsible for creating monsters. In the shadow of The Second World War and the predominance we have placed on its victorious resolution, we have, in many ways, fallen prey to that which we sacrificed to deter. And the most overwhelmingly important aspect of that is our continued belief that our way of life not only represents the pinnacle of civilized society, but that to refuse it is to entertain perfidy.

Liberty, at its core, is a very tricky business. It requires, above all things, tolerance for those who hold opposing views and the realization that such views are Constitutionally protected. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Where the First Amendment becomes particularly interesting is when it protects the rights of those that, in the eyes of most, use their right to free expression and speech to make statements that are hateful. While most would agree that the detritus spread by White Supremacy groups is both dangerous and, one could argue, counter the fundamental principles of liberty itself, their right to voice their opinion is, nonetheless, protected under the First Amendment. And while there has been legislation passed that differentiates between hate speech and freedom of speech, in a purely Constitutional sense, there really shouldn’t be restrictions placed on anyone’s rights, be they abhorrent or not. That is, unfortunately, what true liberty entails.

While the Constitution of the United States is, without question, one of the most important and revolutionary documents in existence, it is not without its misinterpretations. While many right-wing American Christians firmly believe that the United States is a Christian nation and should be wholly guided by Christian principles, the Constitution clearly defines that there be a separation between Church and State precisely so that the religious views of some, even if in the majority, cannot influence government and thus alienate, or discriminate against, those that belong to religious minorities. And yet, when the President of the United States speaks, as many Presidents before him have as well, he refers to a Christian God with regards to the fundamental morality of the nation. And while, as a citizen himself, he has the right to believe as he wishes, as President he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and therefore ensure that his personal religious views do not influence the power of the executive, nor alienate those of other beliefs.

The French philosopher and Deist, François-Marie Arouet, better known to most as Voltaire, once exclaimed “Though I may disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it”. This quote has often been produced to make a point about the realities of true liberty, that it, in and of itself, must be held in the highest of regards no matter personal beliefs, and that the defense of personal liberties supercedes divisions within society that might undermine the universal rights of all people. But what is interesting about Voltaire is that in Essai sur les mœurs he refers to Black people as ‘animals’, and claims that they exhibited traits that are physically and mentally different than other races. He also wrote of Jews - “The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous — cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity.”

You may disagree with Voltaire’s beliefs, but according to him, you should be prepared to die to defend his right to them. And while he is exalted as an early champion of civil rights, the right to due process, and freedom of religion, he also held beliefs that are, to many, simply ignorant and inhuman.

In a way, Voltaire’s words were not so much a pledge of his staunch belief in universal liberty as they were an avenue for justifying his own misgivings. And that, in the context of liberty, must not be lost on us. For despite its maxims being celebrated for their universal connectivity, the principles of liberty are more often used as shelters for ignorant behaviour and intolerant beliefs. It is, in no small way, something that provides refuge to scoundrels more than it promotes commonality, let alone people’s belief in an overriding code that exists to protect the dispositions of those that they disagree with. In truth, liberty, in a modern context, exists to protect our personal beliefs, not to promote the understanding that others are just as entitled to their own.

This photograph is of a young man holding a sign in New York City during a pro-war protest held across the street from what have become weekly anti-war protests. His sign reads: “One Nuke = $300,000. 1 million dead Ragheads…priceless”.

Under the First Amendment of the Constitution, this boy, a 16 year old named Ty Hammer, has ever right to hold that sign and publicly advocate his beliefs, no matter how ignorant or hateful they may be. The question remains though, at what point does liberty take into account the humanity that is supposedly behind it?

I am not Voltaire, nor will I ever be remembered as one of the great minds of my time, but I will be presumptuous enough to say the following. I might disagree with what others believe, and I certainly would defend their right to believe as they wish, but the foundation of liberty is not one that can be steeped in the semantic. It must be one that is based on human commonality, and therefore the tenets of toleration and empathy. It is, at its core, a binding of the responsibility of individuals to seek the best qualities within a society and champion them, not a protectionist device used to safeguard divisiveness or intolerance. Because that is not liberty, merely an excuse to believe that it still exists.

From time to time I snap. This is one of those times. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that last week I had a root canal that didn’t go particularly well and for the last 24 hours I have been in agonizing pain, I’m not sure. But from time to time, no matter your excuse, snapping can be a good thing.

Outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a surprise visit to Iraq yesterday and, as one might expect, claimed that signs of change and progress were evident in the country. Completely contradicting such tripe is a recently released paper by the British foreign policy think tank Chatham House, which claims that Iraq faces the distinct possibility of collapse and fragmentation, which, if you’re at all familiar with the particulars of the English language, means that “things aren’t necessarily good”.

And yet the Prime Minister of Great Britain can face the press while visiting the country and make it appear that the reality of the war and occupation has been anything but a complete disaster.

If, by now, you cannot see that that isn’t the case, then you are part of the problem, certainly not the solution. Point in fact, from the folks at Truthdig…

“Remember those photos of Iraqi women triumphantly raising freshly inked fingers for Western cameras after voting in their new “democracy”? They were presented to the world by the U.S. government as an indication of a policy that would liberate Iraqi women and men. Well, it didn’t quite work out that way, according to Iraqi women’s rights activist Yanar Mohammed, who argues that the situation for women in her country has significantly worsened since the American invasion in 2003.

Despite his immense failings and unforgivable atrocities, Saddam Hussein ran an essentially secular government that gave women more educational, professional and social freedoms than does the current regime. This is a source of chagrin to people like Mohammed who detested the dictatorship but fear that the future will only bring new restrictions and greater oppression for Iraq’s women under the guise of “democracy.”

When you start comparing the current state of women’s rights in what is supposed to be a democratic country to that of the progressive conditions that women enjoyed under a genocidal despot, either you know something is amiss or you’re so detached from reality that you spend hours on end talking to yourself in the mirror every day because, not surprisingly, you’re the only person that will listen to your own bullshit.

And it is precisely that – bullshit.

Iraq’s current government is entirely ineffectual and considered by most to be little more than an adjunct of those currently occupying the country. That being the case, what hope does democracy actually have in Iraq? Until such time as Iraqis are able to fully control the process themselves, and that includes that full participation of those such as Muqtada al-Sadr, the Kurdish block, and the leaderships of the predominant Sunni insurgent groups, then democracy will fail because the only choice left is government imposed by force, not popular will, even though elections are held, and even though an Iraqi Parliament exists. If the majority of Iraqis don’t believe in the ability of their own government to solve Iraq’s problems by fully exploring something that, until this point, has not existed, then the status quo will remain and the country will continue to spiral ever downwards into greater depths of violence and despair. And, in truth, it might even be too late to stop that process from continuing.

What do I mean by - fully exploring something that, until this point, has not existed? Well, I’m referring to an actual Iraqi democracy, not a democracy imposed that is a reflection of the desires of others for sake of their own foreign policy objectives.

Iraq’s federal infrastructure is, at present, entirely factionalized, right down to local police departments and even elements within its armed forces. Such factionalism occurs because no strong and respectable Iraqi government is in place that can actually work towards consolidating the country, which, in truth, might not even succeed in the end. But what could an Iraqi government acting of its own accord, and consisting of representation that includes those that have opposed the occupation, dare attempt to accomplish on behalf of their countrymen? The irony is, a great deal of it would probably be counter to Western objectives, which poses a real threat to the survival of true Iraqi democracy.

The West is not interested in an Iraqi democracy, they’re interested in creating a proxy government in one of the world’s most important regions. Were that not the case, they would actually take seriously requests by the current government to have their forces removed from the country. Unfortunately, at this point, their credibility is shot, and attempts at negotiating with insurgent groups and other predominant blocks has passed the point of being realistic. When the United States undermines the authority of the government that they, themselves, helped create, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that no one in Iraq is going to take what they say at face value.

Personally, I would love to see a democratic Iraq exist that represented the cultural realities of the country, as much as we might disagree with those realities. Because at least then a starting point would be achieved. So too would the immediate nationalization of Iraqi oil be of importance. Were Iraq’s government able to wholly control their own oil exports, and use the profits to help rebuild the country with a series of public works programs that involved Iraqis rebuilding their country, it may go a long way to creating a sense of national consolidation. The truth is, the nationalization of Iraqi oil will never be entirely permitted by those who now occupy the country, even though they have been the ones responsible for the decimation of its infrastructure. And despite promises to help rebuild the country when a level of security is reached to permit it, the truth is that that level of security will never exist while they are present and pulling the strings.

The general consensus is that were Western forces to abandon Iraq that a bloodbath would ensue and that a civil war would fragment the nation. It should never be overlooked that this works to the advantage of those currently occupying the country and their entirely unrealistic expectations regarding the success of the current Iraqi government. Unfortunately, the mess created by the occupation has led to the current state of violence in the country, one that will not subside while the occupation continues, and one that will most likely continue were it to end. Thus, the alternative is no alternative, simply the status quo – or worse.

As some of you are aware, historically Iraq is three separate provinces that were consolidated by the British following the First World War. At no time in its history as a nation has there really existed a true national identity. Under the various leaderships that the country has seen since the early 20’s, there have always existed divisions and suspicions. The Kurds, for example, have never particularly been fond of adhering to Baghdad’s governance. Then there are the tensions between the Shia and Sunnis to consider, tensions that existed long before US armor rolled across the border from Kuwait into Iraq in 2003. And even though those tensions obviously still exist, ones that have produced considerable violence over the last four years, there is no questioning the fact that even the divisive nature prevalent within Iraq is something that Iraqi’s themselves will ultimately have to confront. Unless, that is, foreign troops plan to remain in the country for the next two or more decades in hopes of waiting it all out and slowly working to legitimize the government that they’ve engineered.

There is no quick fix in Iraq because there is no attaining what we would categorize as a victory. Staying the course is little more than a policing effort contrived to safeguard the survival of the current government, during which the violence will continue. Exiting Iraq will, no doubt, also lead to violence, perhaps even the termination of the country as we know it.

The question is – whose right is it to decide that? If democracy is to even be considered in Iraq, it must be a system bought into freely by Iraqis, or at least a majority of them that can then work to consolidate power and look to stabilizing the country itself. At this point it has become resoundingly clear that the likes of the United States cannot act as effective partners in that process. If anything, Iraq’s neighbours must be included in trying to stabilize the country for the sake of the region itself, and such efforts should also not be tainted by US foreign policy concerns.

At some point, we’re going to have to call it like it is. And that’s that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has created a fearful and violent state that, in some ways, rivals the dark days of the Hussein regime.

It’s 250 pages in length and was drafted by a cooperation of 108 Iraqis over the last two years. The participants included ‘Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, Assyrian Christians, Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, and other minorities, the majority of which are sill in Iraq.’ Thus far, having been sent both to the British Parliament and the United States Congress, only 24 members of the British Parliament have responded to it. Not surprisingly, no one in Congress has.

And yet, compared to Iraqi proposals that have been made by individuals with ties to the current government, or any others that have been conjured up by foreigners, it makes the most sense.

Why? Because it takes into consideration both the realities of what is currently occurring in Iraq and is a plan for the country’s future that focuses on, of all things, Iraqis.

You remember them, they’re that troublesome bunch that actually inhabit the country and that have stood in the way of all this coming off like a Jerry Bruckheimer film. And they’re the ones, when all is said and done, that will remain there.

The plans proposals are concise and straight forward. The only trouble with them is that they, as mentioned, actually focus on the needs of Iraqis and the future of the country rather than the needs or requirements of foreign powers.

Here are a few of the plans objectives…

Here are a few select quotes that answer some questions about the plan’s expectations…

“Unlike some other plans, like that put forward in January by Ali Allawi, former Iraqi Defense Minister and current advisor to Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, none of the Iraqis who worked on this plan have ties to the current government.

That’s important, maintain authors of the initiative, because its backing by occupations forces means it will never hold legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis. Thus, it will always be a resistance target, says Dr. Khair El-Din Haseeb, Director General of Beirut’s Center for Arab Unity Studies, the Arab world’s most prominent think-tank, and sponsor of the project.

“This plan proposes a direction for the future of Iraq,” explained co-author Dr. Abdul Karim Hani in Damascus. “We’ve been asked many times what is the political program of the resistance. Well, this is it.”

Signatories on the plan represent thousands of Iraqis, the authors say, because many of them speak for larger groups. Hani, for example, is with the Iraqi National Foundation Congress, a broad coalition of political, intellectual, religious, and ethnic forces.

“This occupation came out of 13 years of the worst sanctions the world has seen. Now, we have had four years of even worse suffering. These are the conditions under which this document was written,” explains Hani, who himself finally fled Iraq for Cairo a year and a half ago.

The imperative for Iraqis to re-gain control of their country is what fueled the broad-based plan.”

Further…

“Numerous other plans for Iraq have also been written by groups opposed to the occupation. Some, like that written by the Association of Muslim Scholars, the powerful Sunni clerics’ organization, have been submitted to the United Nations. Planning is underway for a high-level meeting next month which will coalesce the numerous Iraqi projects.

“We are forming a very broad unified resistance front that represents the will of the Iraqi people,” says Hana Ibrahim, co-author and director of the Baghdad-based NGO Women’s Will. “We are growing very large, so maybe we won’t agree on every detail, but we don’t need to. We can put smaller differences aside to agree on the most important point, ending the occupation of our country. What’s important is a unified resistance front.” “

Among the groups there are contacts with [armed] resistance groups, so we have their agreement as well,” explains Haseeb. At that point the group plans to dedicate a website where international support can be registered.

The distinction between Iraq’s resistance and other armed groups is critical, contends Haseeb, yet a serious lack of analysis most Western media wrongly lump all armed groups together under the “insurgent” umbrella.

“The [armed] resistance does not attack innocent people and condemns all violence directed at civilians. The Iraqi resistance, whether armed or political, is legally-sanctioned under international law.” This point, Haseeb argues, is missing in most media and completely ignored by the Bush Administration. He acknowledges, “there’s been a vacuum of political resistance. This [plan] will fill that vacuum.”

And lastly…

“Importantly, the initiative also proposes a draft constitution, which maintains national unity, addresses oil rights, and guarantees civil and social rights.

“The plan is not perfect when it comes to women’s rights, but it gives us back what we had before,” says Ibrahim. “We must first end the occupation to end the violence. It doesn’t matter how many rights women do or don’t have if we can’t even walk down the streets in safety.”

A blueprint is desperately needed, Haseeb points out. “The political process is crumbling; we have coalitions of [local] governments rather than a central one. The ministers are all living in the Green Zone, meaning they have no access to the ministries they’re supposed to run. We know the Ministry of Interior has been penetrated by militias—at least 80 percent, the Army by at least 50 percent. That means the Americans cannot hand over security to the Iraqi forces as planned.

“They [the Americans] argue without the US Army the civil war will grow. This is nonsense! Even the Pentagon says resistance attacks have increased by 68 percent. This is against the US military. If the US withdraws, violence would obviously decrease. It’s simple math.”

The exposure of proposals such as this are vitally important in that they show that foreign objectives in Iraq are, in no small way, what prevents them from being realistically considered. There is no arguing that the current Iraqi government is largely viewed as illegitimate by most Iraqis, something that has to be addressed when examining the refusal of the United States to commit to a dedicated withdrawal timetable. We have, in no small way, been sold on the notion that were US and British troops to leave Iraq that it would descend into complete chaos, a chaos that was, of course, created by the occupation itself. That said, at what point do we stop treating the people of Iraq as little more than confused children that require the assistance of the West to succeed as an independent nation?

As has been said in the past, and I’m sure I’ll say it again in the future, this entire affair has far more to do with domestic US politics than it does anything else. And the price of that arrogance is being paid for by those that would see their country free, peaceful, and working towards a better future. There will, as in all cases, be bumps in the road along the way, but that is to be expected in the formation of any new federal infrastructure. Ultimately, it comes down to a simple question – why do foreign powers believe that they have more of a right in determining the future of Iraq than Iraqis? And what do they stand to lose by allowing Iraqis autonomous self-determination?