Rio de Janeiro

I recently compared notes about Rio de Janeiro with JJ from The view from down South: a Liberal in DC. http://dcgrit.blogspot.com/2007/01/pictoral-interlude-v-view-from-above.html One of the topics of conversion was crime and Cariocas’ subjective feelings of personal safety. I have expanded on some of those musings below.

How safe one feels depends on were you live in Rio. If you live in Ipanema, or Leblon, your sense of personal safety is going to be much better than if you live in Duque de Caxias. That said, regardless of where someone is in Rio, crime, or the threat of it, affects people’s behavior. As you know, because of the threat of being car jacked people rarely stop at red lights after dark. On the flip side of things, a code of conduct has developed amongst many muggers. They appreciate the cost of getting a driver’s license etc and so will dump emptied wallets and purses in the mail box. Such niceness would not be possible if the post office had not set up a program to facilitate it. The fact that they bothered speaks volumes about just how common such muggings are. Crime has turned Rio’s many dozens of malls into beehives of activity involving the whole family. Malls in some parts of North America have failed because the environment they offered is too sanitized, in Rio that is the attraction. Rio’s malls are in many respects self contained communities; they have everything from daycares, to stores and movie theaters. Brazilian law helps facilitate such feelings of safety by placing the onus on the mall to keep its customers safe. For example, under Brazil law, you can sue the mall, if your car is broken into in a mall’s parking lot. The same is true if you are mugged.

Rio is also in many ways a city on the edge. There are always plenty of riot cops in full gear in the downtown core (In and around Rua Branco) and the army is always out during Carnival checking people’s papers. I once counted 23 riot police on a Monday afternoon on Setembro street just milling about. Incidentally, I did not see any kind of protest downtown. However, I did see some in Duque de Caxias and one did get ugly. Tear gas was let off and rubber bullets were flying. Finally there are the nightly checkpoints. The Red Line is famous for them. They are a nightly occurrence and they are almost always set up in the same fashion. One cop car is parked across the highway limiting traffic to one line. There is another cop car behind pointing down the highway. Leaning on the hood of the second car is a guy armed with some kind of machinegun, sometimes heavy but mostly light. He is pointing the gun down the highway. You are directed to stop just at the spot where he is pointing. The police look in the car and either pull you over or wave you through. Many people turn on their lights to prove they are not black. Brazil is not as post racial as it likes to think.

Part of the problem is this. The favelas, where the gangs such as the Comando Vermelho (Red Command), are based, are de facto sovereign entities. Even locals seek permission before they enter and the boundaries between them and the rest of the city resemble at times boarder crossings. The police only venture in when they are well armed. In both Rio and Sao Paulo, police sometimes venture in inside an armored personal carrier, a caveiraos, painted black with skull painted on the front. The aforementioned Red Line cuts through Mare favela and the debate about whether to “wall in” the favela nicely captured the divide. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20050602-1309-crime-brazil-wall.html The place at which the Red Line cuts through the favela has been the seen of more than few shootouts and robberies of motorists stuck in traffic and it was proposed that a wall be constructed in this area. Much to dismay of people I know, the wall was never built. If for no other reason than the chance of accident would be significantly less, I can sympathize. Rio drivers are not known for their good driving habits at the best of times and the road narrows at this point, there is curve in the road and people speed up.

For those wishing to see a favela, there are guided tours – slum safaris if you will. They are safe. The tour operators give the gangs a cut of the profits in return for safe passage.

The police are still the meanest kid on the block. A third of all homicides are attributed to them. However, the power of the gangs even outside the favelas should not be understated. Not only can they be not wiped out, they have the ability to bring Rio to its knees. Indeed, whereas in Canada the schools sometimes close because of snow, in Rio schools shut down from time to time because the Red Command has threatened to shoot them up. To prove they mean business, they shoot up one or two. This is one tactic the gangs use to bring the government to the negotiating table. Sometimes it takes other forms. Last month, for instance, they boarded a city bus and set it alight with the passengers still on board. 7 were killed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6214299.stm

I was not the victim of any real violence. The cops shook me down for 50 bucks and I was tailed on a bus, but that was the worst of it. The locals I associated with were not as lucky after I left. A person I stayed with was murdered 3 months after I left. He went to pick up some groceries some 5 minutes walk from where I stayed, got in argument and was shot 6 times in the head. It is common knowledge as to who the murderer is, but no eyewitness, and there was many, have come forward. The investigation is thus stalled. This is not unusual for the northern part of Rio. Well under 50% of all murder cases are solved. Another person I knew literally got his head kicked in by the cops. He stupidly mugged someone at the Lagoon and was caught by the police. Someone took a picture using a cell phone camera of a cop kicking him in the head. The picture made the papers. Soon after I left the cops went on a rampage in Baixada and murdered 29 people in one day of bloodshed. I used to do some of my shopping near the site of the carnage. http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR190302006?open&of=ENG-351

Harper's Kyoto Speeches: Email Quotes to others

I wish the Liberal party would stop putting Harper’s Kyoto speeches into PDF files. They are easier and quicker to access in html. It is also easier to paste in html. This is important. The Liberals want people to send quoted material to their friends via email who will send it to their friends and so on. There are a lot of Liberal blogs listed here. If everyone emailed 30 people and these people emailed just 15 more people, these quotes could reach fair number of Canadians. So, get busy.

Anyway, when discussing these speeches the Liberals must not focus on the economics of Kyoto. The focus has to be on Harper’s denying that human activity is unrelated to global warming.

The following is a good example: "Steve" Harper: “Kyoto simply does not target air quality. It is instead designed to address the so-called “greenhouse gas” phenomenon, the hypothesis that the increase of certain gases – not necessarily pollutants – contribute to a long term global warming trends.”

Liberal Blogs should go negative: Get the quote out

I ask my fellow bloggers Stand Up for Canada. Paste the following from Stephen Harper into an email and fire that email off to as many people as they can think of.

Stephen Harper: “It would take more than one letter to explain what’s wrong with Kyoto, but here are a few facts about this so-called “Accord”:
— It’s based on tentative and contradictory scientific evidence about climate trends.
— It focuses on carbon dioxide, which is essential to life, rather than upon pollutants.
— Canada is the only country in the world required to make significant cuts in emissions. Third World countries are exempt, the Europeans [e.g., France, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Great Britain, Austria, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark] get credit for shutting down inefficient Soviet-era industries, and no country in the Western hemisphere except Canada is signing."

This is the reference.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/176382

Reality has to have a well known-Liberal-bias

Politics is about who is able to define whom. The Liberals need to define the Conservatives. The Liberals understand this of course.

What they do not seem to understand is that a winning issue is not always a vote getter. SSM was great example. At the polls it was looser. Canadians were spilt on the issue, but the older one is the more likely one is to be opposed and to vote. The Liberals never understood why SSM was a winning issue. They figured it must have something to do with the popularity of the Charter and as their cherry pick line polled extremely well they went with that. They made themselves out to be the Charter’s champion and this led them to propose sealing off the notwithstanding clause. There are echoes of such thinking in some of the party’s public pronouncements still. However, SSM was not a winning issue because the Liberals were able to convince Canadians that they were the Charter’s honor guard.

It was a winning issue because it left the Conservatives defending a morally, legally, and intellectually untenable position. By proposing to seal away the notwithstanding clause, Martin and company simply diverted attention away from the one issue, and I do mean one, that worked for them last election. The debate switched from can anything positive be said about the Conservative SSM position to do really want to seal away the notwithstanding clause for good?

With SSM finally off the table, the Liberals need to find a new issue. They again need to push the Conservatives into defending the undefendable. Reality has to have a well known Liberal bias. There are several possibilities.

Global warming is the first that comes to mind. It would certainly be a god sent if the Conservatives were to deny global warming, which in the public’s mind extends to dishing Kyoto. However, based on the slew of repackaged Liberal policies being reintroduced by the Conservatives, Harper is not likely to play ball. Furthermore, the Liberals can be rest assured, come next election Harper will throw the likes of Stockwell Day and Rob Anders into some broom closet, where they will be kept bound and gagged for the duration of the campaign. Just as bad, signs are pointing to a NDP and Conservative Clean Air Act Part Two. Layton needs “results” and Harper is happy to oblige; he has no choice but to “commit” to Kyoto. Both are having some success chipping away at the Liberal’s hope of being the focus of the environmental vote. It is grossly unfair to saddle Dion with Chrétien’s dismal environmental record, but just the same some of the mud is bound to stick. In other words, Dion’s ace in the hole is slowly but surely being neutralized.

Another possibility is Afghanistan. However, to date, the Liberal’s performance on this issue has been at best mixed. As with SSM the Liberals have not understood why the issue gave the Tories so much trouble during the summer and why it has the potential to do so again. The Liberal plan of attack has been to accuse the Conservatives of perverting the original mission and in the process somehow betraying Canada’s historical commitment to peace keeping. One problem with such an approach is this. In order for Canadian public to buy into the notion that the Conservative government’s Afghan policy is a perversion of the previous Liberal government’s Afghan policy, the Canadian public has to have some knowledge of just what the Liberal policy was. And they do not have a clue. The Conservatives own the issue. It is, actually, for this reason, that the peace keeping line of attack has some superficial appeal. Canadians have a nostalgic attachment to Pearsonian peacekeeping that is rivaled only by their fascination with the Avro Arrow. Canadians also understand that the Kandahar mission is not a peace keeping one and that it never can be one. There is, however, no disconnect. While Canadians like to think of themselves as being first and foremost as being a nation of peace keepers, the vast majority reject the notion that Canada should limit itself only to peacekeeping. For the minority who think otherwise, the Liberal has an answer; it was Paul Martin that first sent troops into Kandahar.

The true source of the discontent was this. As casualties mounted, Canadians began to ask questions. The majority concluded that not only did the government’s pronouncements not reflect the reality on the ground but that the Conservatives were being deliberately deceptive. Canadians were particularly bothered by the Conservatives use of Republican Iraq war talking points. To site but one example, after 4 Canadians were killed in May, Peter Mackay trotted out a Conservative version of the Republican "last throes" talking point.: "my understanding is sometimes the increase in the insurgency is the recognition that the Taliban may be on the run and we are now moving perhaps into territories where they are feeling more threatened." http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c6594164-b1d4-49e1-8876-941e4472238d&k=40999 Canadians were not impressed. They did not believe that the death of four Canadians was proof that all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Had the Liberals not waxed nostalgic about Pearsonian peacekeeping and had instead given the Canadian public what it most wanted, i.e., forthright talk, they might have been able to make more headway.

The problem with Afghanistan going forward is that the Conservatives are learning that Canadians’ sense of smell is more refined than what they had first thought and that they have to temper their enthusiasm for borrowing Republican catch phrases that have morphed into punch lines. Furthermore, although Stephen Harper might believe that high casualties are a sign that Canada is “back”, not many Canadians agree and Harper and company are beginning to sense this. Harper, though, is stubborn and reluctant to concede too quickly. “Steve” Harper: September 18 “We are taking casualties because we are moving (the Taliban) from their very last bastions of strength and support,''.

A subject emerging out of the horrors of the Pickton trail is what to do with prostitution. Sadly, Canadians are not ready for legalized prostitution, but the subject is not one the federal leaders will be able to ignore, particularly when campaigning in Vancouver. Dion should propose a commission to look into the issue. The more he can draw the Conservatives into a discussion the better. With any luck, Harper will again appoint Art Hanger as his point man on the subject. Many Conservative MPs will be dying to air their moral outrage at the mere hint of legalized prostitution and quite frankly Canadians need to hear what they have to say. The thought of coverage of the Pickton trail and being followed by coverage of Conservatives defending the status quo is almost too good a juxtaposition to be true.

Canada’s drug laws will also be a subject of debate whenever the leaders visit Vancouver. Of particular concern will be Vancouver’s safe injection site, Insite. Virtually everyone backs the program --- everyone that is except the Conservatives. That said, Stephen Harper’s stubborn refusal to concede the obvious, viz., the program’s success, has been in some ways god sent for the site’s backers. Had Harper simply given the site the three year extension it was looking for, word of site’s many successes would not have spread as fast and as far as it did. After all, however advant guard the issue, the site’s many successes are not nearly as exciting a news story as the government denying the scholarly evidence staring them in the face. Stephane Dion is doing exactly what is good for the country and for the Liberals; he is talking about expanding the program. Vancouver Sun: “A federal Liberal government would provide funding for supervised injection sites in more Canadian cities, party leader Stephane Dion said Thursday. "It's a pilot project which seems to be quite a success," Dion told reporters in Coquitlam, referring to the Insite safe injection site in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. He said the Liberals would support projects similar to the Vancouver site only if they were proposed by local government. "I would give the funds to continue the experience and work with mayors if they want to replicate this experience that has been successful also abroad." One can only hope that that this encourages more Conservatives to speak out on the subject.

Talk of decriminalizing marijuana still gathers media attention and, by and large, the coverage is positive for the Liberals. However that it positive for the Liberals has more to do with the Conservatives strong prohibitionist leanings and their willingness to serve as an stand in for the American drug warriors than with the Liberal’s “commitment” to decriminalization. The Liberals have talked about decriminalizing marijuana on and off for 34 years and have done nothing. Worse, the Liberals approach to marijuana is superficial and muddled. The party can not decide just where it stands on the issue. The Liberals strangely favor both decriminalization and tougher sentences for trafficking. Needless to say, in trying to justify one the Liberals undercut the rational for the other. The following comments from Jean Chrétien, for example, just does not jive with tough talk about protecting Canadian kids from the supposed dangerous of marijuana: "What has happened is so illogical [prosecuting Canadians for marijuana possession] that they are not prosecuted anymore. So let's make the law adjust to the realities. It is still illegal, but they will pay a fine. It is in synch with the times.” If the Liberals are going to capitalize on Harper’s intellectually bankrupt prohibitionist stance, they are going have first straighten out their own house. They have ridden the decriminalization issue as far as it will take them. If they are to perk the media’s interest and to draw the Conservatives out into the open, they are going to have to mention the L word, i.e., legalization.

Bam the dog: Stephane Dion's dark sense of humour

According to the Globe and Mail, Stephane Dion was asked to tell a joke on a Quebec Talk show. He responded thus: "SD: Have you heard of Bam the dog? Show host: "No." SD: "A car goes by. Bam, the dog! Now go to sleep."

I like it.

Liberals Need a Defining Issue

As I have said time and time again, politics is about who is able to define whom. The Liberals need to define the Conservatives. The Liberals understand this of course. What they do not seem to understand is that a winning issue is not always a vote getter. SSM was great example. At the polls it was looser. Canadians were spilt on the issue, but the older one is the more likely one is to be opposed and to vote. The Liberals never understood why SSM was a winning issue. They figured it must have something to do with the popularity of the Charter and as their cherry pick line polled extremely well they went with that. They made themselves out to be the charter’s champion and this led them to propose sealing off the notwithstanding clause and release tapes of Toews spouting off about using it. The fact of the matter is that the SSM was not a winning issue because of anything the Liberals said. It was a winning issue because it left the Conservatives defending a morally, legally, and intellectually untenable position. By proposing to seal away the notwithstanding clause, Martin and company simply diverted attention away from the one issue, and I do mean one, that worked for them last election. The debate switched from can anything positive be said about the Conservative SSM position to do really want to seal of the notwithstanding clause for good?

It would be great if the Conservatives were to deny global warming, which in the public’s mind means dishing Kyoto. However, be rest assured that come next election Harper will throw the likes of Stockwell Day into some broom closet, where they will be kept bound and gagged for the duration of the campaign. Moreover, all the signs are pointing to a NDP and Conservative Clean Air Act Part Two. Layton needs “results” and Harper is happy to oblige; he has no choice but to “commit” to Kyoto. Both are having some success chipping away at the Liberals hope of being the focus of the environmental vote. It is grossly unfair to saddle Dion with Chrétien’s dismal environmental record, but just the same some of the mud is bound to stick. In other words, Dion’s ace in the hole is slowly but surely being neutralized.

The Liberals need, so to speak, a new defining issue. One candidate used down south to great effect is the Stem cell debate. The Democrats have successfully painted the Republicans as being a bunch of anti-science hicks on this one. However, the issue is not large enough and most important of all I am sure the Conservatives would take the bait.

Now, another rule of thumb in politics is that you have to repeat a message endlessly for it to have any chance of reaching the average Canadian. That being said, I will once again get on my high hoarse and call for the Liberals to propose legalizing marijuana. Force Stephen Harper into defending an intellectually bankrupt prohibitionist stance alone with the Bush administration and James Dobson. Every word from Dobson and Bush is as good as free ad time as for as the Liberals would be concerned. Indeed, it would be better. Having talked to Dion about the subject I very much doubt he would ever propose such a thing. http://themaplethree.blogspot.com/2006/10/interviewing-stephane-dion.html

The NDP need to be Punished

I have long bemoaned vote splitting on the left. However, it would be shame if the NDP were to disappear. The NDP has a place in Canadian politics.

At its worst, the NDP is what is today under Jack Layton. Layton seems to believe that there is but one measure of political success in Canada and that is the number of seats one wins. Hence, the 2006 election was deemed an improvement on the 2004 election. It matters not that the NDP had more influence in the latter than it does in the former or that his give the Conservatives a free ride campaign helped elect someone so ideologically opposed to everything the NDP has stood for in the past he referred to them as the “devil”. 2006 was a 10 seat improvement and was thus an improvement. When confronted with the political consequences of such a campaign, Layton et al like to claim that Liberals and Conservatives are in reality too peas in pod and as such the switch in government did not matter. This only serves to undermine their credibility with voters – knowledgeable ones anyway. Leaving aside a history of cooperation between Liberal minority governments and the NDP and cooperation between Layton and Martin on the 2005 “NDP budget”, on a policy by policy basis Martin’s Liberal’s were closer to the NDP than they where the Conservatives and, as alluded to above, there is virtually no overlap between NDP and Conservative policy. The NDP fall back line that they are different from the Liberals in so far as they mean what they say and the Liberals talk a good game but walk right while in power is disingenuous to say the least. The NDP have never been a position to walk the walk and what successes they have come under Liberal governments. Indeed, while Layton would have Canadians believe that 134 Liberals helped pass an NDP budget, it is more accurate to say that 19 NDP MPs helped pass a Liberal budget. Paul Martin is the elephant in the living room whenever Layton implies that NDP and the NDP alone got “results” for average Canadians. If he had run an honest campaign, Layton should have claimed that the NDP will be in a position to fight for Canadians if and only if Canadians elect another Liberal minority government. Instead he helped toss the Liberals from power and in the process rendered his party impotent.

While NDP has at times tired to paint the Liberals and Conservatives as being the two peas in a pod, Layton is desperately trying to turn his party into a Liberal surrogate. The Liberals drone on about Kyoto, Kelowna and childcare and like a little brother trying to emulate his older brother so too do the NDP. As the “Natural governing party of Canada” the Liberals grab the headlines and like a little brother parroting his older brother the NDP get nothing more than the odd amused chuckle. After showing signs original thinking on Afghanistan, Layton’s inner child lost confidence in his own views and has subsequently backtracked; the NDP’s Afghan policy is becoming more muddled by the day and in the process more and more Liberal. Layton’s Liberal drag routine has met with some tactical success, but strategically it is doomed. Voters prefer an original to a knockoff and besides if forced to choose between two parties championing identical issues voters are likely to go with the party that actually has a chance of winning.

One of the problems with US politics is that two parties so dominant the political landscape that any other suitor is a complete afterthought. One consequence of this is that the political debate in the States is hopelessly narrow; it is focused almost exclusively on what is politically possible and what will have a positive impact at the ballot box. American politics is the calculus of pleasing corporate America enough that they are so kind enough to fund you, well all the while finding a message that will on the one hand appeal to one’s base and while at the same time be sufficiently appealing to fair-weather “independents”. Not surprisingly, pundits in the States spend more time assessing the political ramifications of such and such action and surprisingly little time assessing the merits of such and such an action or policy. The relevant frequency of US elections, a lack of party discipline, a bicameral political system, term limits and fixed election dates simply compound matters. They keep what the odds maker’s say newsworthy and a handicapping system from becoming too amorphous. The same would be so, albeit to a lesser degree, in Canada if the NDP never existed.

At its best, the NDP has provided an invaluable service to all Canadians; it widened the Canadian political debate and did so by historically being the most ideological of the major political parities. Parties concerned with the “art of the possible” are not infusing the political debate with new ideas with little chance of furthering their party at the polls. They are reactive. However, the catch 22 of such pragmatism is that such parties concede some of the field to those who are not so cautious. To use an evolutionary metaphor, the politically brave and ideologically pure help determine the policy areas to be discussed; the powerful and pragmatic determine what policies get accepted. Historically, the NDP were able to get “results” for Canadians in two ways. One, they played King Maker in several Liberal minority governments. Two, they were able to achieve successes at a distance by continually infusing the political arena with new policy ideas. Either way the Liberal party benefited. By infusing the political arena with ideas from a leftist perspective, the NDP shifted the political debate in Canada leftward, leaving Liberals and not the Progressive Conservatives as the “natural governing party of Canada”.

Things changed in the 1990s. The emergence of the ideological puritanical Reform party, Conrad Black and Canwest Global and series of electoral disasters for the NDP helped move the political debate in English Canada inexorably rightward. The news, in more ways than one, is no better today. The NDP’s chameleon act threatens to concede the war of ideas to the right on a permanent basis. If it were not for the Supreme Court, and George Bush's arrogance, stupidity, bullheadedness, the right would have controlled the political agenda in its entirety. That is one reason why some consider Harper a moderate. By mid 80 standards however, he makes Mulroney look like a raving pinko; Harper certainly thought the PCs a bunch a pinkos back then and that is why he left them to help found the Reform party. The left has no other champion except maybe the Toronto Star. The Liberals are certainly of no help. They are still adrift in a policy vacuum. They are still busy trying to fine tune a platform they ran on and lost in 2006. Meanwhile, there are legions of Conservative missionaries in the media. Pace Harper, virtually ever major newspaper backed the Conservatives 2006, as detailed in the McGill media studies, the Liberals received the lion’s share of the negative press in both 2004 and 2006 and then there is Sun media, the Conservative party’s PR wing. They have also not lost their ideological edge and by and large dominant not only the headlines but also set the agenda. However they Conservatives are much more pragmatic than they have were before. They will again release a well focused easy to understand platform.

Harper apologist, admirer, and all but outed closet Conservative Warren Kinsella claimed that the Liberals needed to spend some time in the penalty box last election. Let me propose a variation on this theme. The NDP need to spend some time in the penalty box. No longer we will progressives tolerate, Layton’s lack of vision, his lack of courage and his unwillingness to go after Stephen Harper with every ounce of energy. It is time the NDP, take a page from their provincial brethren and propose progressive, easy to understand policy proposals, such as increase an in the minimum wage. Such proposals have been the bread and butter of socially democratic parties since their inception. It is time the NDP put forth an agenda that that is in that tradition. Canada needs them to and quite frankly so do the Liberals.

Interviewing Stephane Dion

I interviewed Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion on Sunday. I must thank Jason Cherniak http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/ for helping set things up and say special thanks to Dion for agreeing to do the interview. Of all the candidates, Dion has been the most accessible to the blogging community. http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/

I had emailed the candidates a survey back in September and used the questions from that survey in interviewing Dion. Martha Hall Findlay is the only one to respond to the survey by the way. http://themaplethree.blogspot.com/2006/09/liberal-martha-hall-findlay-favors.html


Given his support for "Empire Lite", does Ignatieff have the potential to be as divisive a figure within the party as Tony Blair has become within his party?”

He did not take the bait. He neither implied, nor explicitly said that Tony Blair is a controversial figure within his own party. The only thing he had to say about Blair was that he has been a very successful politician. He added that he won three majorities. I waited for him to drop Chrétien’s name, but he never did draw the parallel. It is a good thing too. Outside of three majorities a piece and maybe rivalries with uppity finance ministers, the similarities stop there.

On the one hand, it is understandable that he would not take the bait. However in other ways it is not. It is understandable in so far as it is not considered good form to be brutally honest about foreign heads of states --- friendly ones anyway. However, it is widely accepted that Blair is a divisive figure and saying so would hardly raise eyebrows. Tactically drawing such a comparison would make sense. It would help place Dion’s call for a review of Ignatieff’s interventionist writings into a favorable political context. After all, one of the dominant themes of the Liberal leadership race is reconciliation and party peace. Liberals have grown tired of infighting between rival power blocks Having just emerged from a civil war, they have no stomach for another. Dion should be warning the Liberal party that what happened with Tony Blair could happen with Ignatieff. Indeed, he should be warning the Liberals that it could be worse. The British Labour party is in better shape finically, politically and in terms of their base of support than Liberal Party of Canada. In its weakened state the Liberal party can not afford another war, especially an ideological one. Moreover, given all the talk about the party brass reconnecting with the party’s base, the Liberal party can not elect a leader who is fundamentally out of step with views of the party’s rank and file, a la Blair and Labour party.

All that being said, Dion went right after Ignatieff. Dion mentioned a 2002 paper in which Ignatieff that some kind of two state solution should be militarily imposed on the Palestinian Authority. This is really quite something and I am amazed that this paper had not come to light before. A lot of the accusations thrown at Ignatieff, including some of the ones Rae leveled on Saturday, are pretty thin gruel. This is not one of them. It is hard to imagine anything that would be a bigger requirement tool for Al Qaeda than the US sending troops into Gaza and the West bank to impose a two state “solution”. There is no question in my mind now that Ignatieff does not have any kind of appreciation for the unintended consequences of war and I do not want him controlling Canadian foreign policy. When it comes to Ignatieff’s foreign policy views, Rae has landed the two biggest rhetorical punches, but Dion has landed by far the more substantive policy blows and this was certainly one of them. Dion was, rightly, indigent about being drowned out by Ignatieff supporters when he tired to raise the subject to this paper at Saturday’s debate in Montreal.


The Senate committee on marijuana concluded that the "Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol"? Do you agree with this conclusion?

He said no. I know Dion is a bit of a contrarian, but this is ridiculous. I will give him points for consistency though. He has been consistency wrong in what he says about marijuana. Previously http://koby.tblog.com/post/1969912969#comment_anchor he told me that “potent pot” is one reason for keeping marijuana illegal. This was bad enough. It strikes me as akin to saying alcohol should be banned because gin has higher alcohol content than beer. Indeed, if anything potent pot should be welcomed. After all, the most prominent health effect related to marijuana is that it is usually smoked. The more potent the pot, the less people have to smoke to achieve the same high. The point is mute though; potent pot is a myth. http://www.slate.com/?id=2074151

Anyway, world wide, since the 1970s there have been literally millions of deaths from Alcohol poisoning and cirrhosis of the liver. I challenge Dion to find one case in the medical literature of someone dying from a marijuana overdose or chronic intake of THC. Some chronic users of marijuana get headaches if they go off the drug. 10% of chronic alcoholics suffer seizures if they do not have a drink and 5% suffer delirium tremens.

Dion’s position is the medical equal of denying global warming. Maybe some things that nutter Paul Steckle says has worn off on him.

Dion feels that marijuana possession should be decriminalized; he wants fines imposed in place of criminal penalties. He noted that Canada’s possession laws are applied unequally throughout the country and that a system of fines would be. This is debatable. However even if granted, a system fines would not yield the results he hopes for. For example, there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest it would reduce consumption.

Such a policy might also yield results he might not have expected. Take Vancouver, it is explicit policy of Vancouver police department, for example, not to charge people for mere possession. Surrounding police forces are equally lenient, but not as upfront. In other words, decriminalization already exists in the Lowermainland on a de facto basis. One reason is that it is simply not practical to do so; charging the huge number people caught in possession of marijuana would cripple the justice system. Another reason is that marijuana possession is not viewed as a serious crime by either the courts or by large numbers of police. If a system of fines was imposed, Vancouverites will not take kindly to such a crack down for a whole host of reasons. Most importantly they would be uppity because they would view the law is illegitimate. Many would see it as akin to fining someone for drinking a beer in a permissible location. They will see it as an illegitimate money grab and the seeds of revolt would be sown. It would be better for Dion and other closeted drug warriors to let sleeping dogs lay.

Decriminalization would also do something else. Although it is explicit policy of the VPD not to charge people for mere possession, the VPD still charge a large number of people with possession and the same is true of other Lowermainland police forces. There is a simple reason for this. Possession is the fall back position whenever the police can not make trafficking charges stick. Put differently the large number of people charged with possession in BC is not a reflection of strict enforcement, but is rather a reflection of the shear size of the marijuana industry here. Marijuana is called weed for a reason; it is grows like one. Couple this with the fact that people here no longer believe in the drug laws and one would have more success trying to drain the great lakes with a spoon than stomping it out. Decriminalize marijuana while at the same time increasing the penalties for trafficking the drug and prohibition in BC will be on the verge of collapse. As it stands, BC prosecutors are prosecuting fewer and fewer people for marijuana trafficking and stiffer sentences will only make this trend more pronounced. There would also be no lesser charge of possession to charge dealers with.

While I welcomed decriminalization for these reasons, there is a less painful solution: legalization. Besides, I too want to see a uniform marijuana policy and the thought of watching heads of social conservative’s heads throughout the land explode gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. The latter will only happen if marijuana is officially legalized.

Can NATO succeed in both stabilizing Afghanistan and destroying the country's number one industry, the opium crop?

Dion said yes, but it was hardly a firm one. He said that what needs to happen is a “redesign of the mission”. He said that what is needed is a “Marshall Plan for Afghanistan”. In other words, despite the fact that several of Dion’s people have referred Gerard Kennedy as policy light weight, Dion’s position along with the rest of the candidates has become Kennedy’s remake the mission position. The reference to the Marshall Plan though is Dion’s and Dion’s alone. It is also not one that works.

The Marshall plan helped rebuild war torn Europe. The operative world being “rebuild”. There is nothing to “rebuild” in the European sense in Afghanistan. Indeed, even in high point of the modernizing zeal in the 1970s, Afghanistan’s child morality was worse than Bangladesh’s! To see how wrong the analogy is consider for a second what Germany, for example, was prior to WW2. The German’s had the by far and away the world’s most advanced chemical industry. The country had produced nearly half the Nobel Price winners. It had the largest coal reserves in Europe. (It was not until the 1950s the gas replaced coal.) It had the most educated population in the world. And it was also not until 1945 that industrial production fell below 1942 and that was not because of any decline in capacity, but was rather due mainly to transportation bottlenecks related to allied bombing. Throw in the fact the influx of millions of upon millions of ethnic Germans from Soviet sector, Poland, and the Sudetenland and elsewhere and you have the makings of a Wirtschaftswunder, i.e., an economic miracle.

Afghanistan, by comparison, is country made up mostly of illiterate peasants without running water or electricity. There is no developed infrastructure, no university system and the opium production is the country’s only viable industry. Most Afghans, it is a young country, know nothing but war. To make matters worse, the vast majority of educated Afghans left long ago and will never return to live.

Decades of development theory have shown there is no magic formula when it comes to development. Western countries have a hard enough time developing their own hinterlands let alone the world’s most impoverished and underdeveloped regions.

Dion also mentioned several of the Asian Tigers, viz. South Korea and Taiwan. Referencing them made more sense than referencing the Marshall plan. However it falls down in several respects. Furthermore, the Tigers where not exactly models of democracy in action.

As with the other candidates, Dion is open to the idea of Western governments buying opium to replenish medical supplies from Afghan farmers.

Suppose next spring there was no let up in the number of Taliban attacks and in the number of Canadians dying, would you call for an end to the mission?

Dion was non committal. However, he said that it would have to be considered.

Given that Al Qaeda has singled Canada out because of our presence in Afghanistan and given that the alleged motivation of the Ontario 17 was our presence in Afghanistan , does our presence in Afghanistan make it more likely that Canada will be attacked by terrorists, home grown or otherwise?

Dion ducked the question. At least, I hope he did. He said that the likelihood of a terrorist attack depended on how effective our police forces and intelligence agencies are. The more effective our police forces the lesser the likelihood of attack. He might as well have uttered the following absurdity; seeing as how Canada has a more effective police force than Brazil, the likelihood that Canada would be attacked by Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda sympathizers is less than Brazil. Yes, an effective police force will lessen the probability of a terrorist attack, but when calculating the probability of an attack a bigger factor bigger is how many people are motivated to carry out such an attack. Motives matter. Only a politician trying to duck a touchy subject would dare pretend otherwise. Now, pace, they are hate our freedoms and multi ethnic make up, Harper, what motives home grown Jihadis is Canadian foreign policy. Just ask Crown prosecutors developing the case against the Ontario 17. As for Al Qaeda, right wing commentators take a perverse delight in noting that Al Qaeda has singled Canada out for attack. They see it as proof that Canadians are hopelessly naïve not to whole heartedly support the war on terror. What they fail to note, however, and this is testament to their complete lack of intellectual honesty, is why Al Qaeda singled Canada out for attack. Canada was singled out because of our presence in Afghanistan.

“What do your governments want from their alliance with America in attacking us in Afghanistan? I mention in particular Britain, France , Italy , Canada, Germany and Australia.

We warned Australia before not to join in the war in Afghanistan, and against its despicable effort to separate East Timor. It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sounds of explosions in Bali."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/osamabinladen/tape.html

I asked Dion the following 5 questions.

1) Canada lags behind far behind virtually every other Western nation in terms of the number vacation days its citizens are guaranteed. Is it time that Canada bridge the vacation gap?

EU minimum is 4 weeks
Switzerland 4 weeks
New Zealand 4 weeks (starting in 2007)
Norway 5 weeks

2) Should Canada pass an euthanasia law, a la Holland ?

3) Other Western countries (e.g., Germany, Finland and Britain)have public dental care. Should Canada?

4) Do you support a proposed heroin maintenance program for Vancouver?

5) In order to attract more international grad students and just as importantly keep a higher percentage of international grad students in country after they graduate, Canada should offer citizenship to those foreign graduate students who complete a graduate degree from, and this important, a public Canadian university. Does this idea have any merit?

He was no made no commitment to any, but he did not rule out any either. He only made two comments of note. With regard to the proposed heroin maintenance program, he said it was an interesting idea. http://www.gatago.com/talk/politics/drugs/14815943.html He also commented on the last question. He worried about what kind effect such a policy would have on “developing” countries, i.e., the reverse brain drain. This surprised me. It was the kind of mushy liberalism at its worst answer I have come to expect from Ignatieff and not someone as hard edged as Dion.

Finally I asked Dion a few light hearted, get to know you questions.

What was the first car you owned?

Renault 12 was his response.
http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/show/9396/index12.htm

Name the last 2 movies you have seen.

Dion seemed dumbfounded that I should ask this question. He racked his brain for an answer and apologized. He said the leadership race did not give him much time for leisure. The last movie he saw was Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/ He also mentioned seeing Fahrenheit 911. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fahrenheit_911/ However, after consulting with someone in French, he decided that in between seeing 911 he had seen Eight Below. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eight_below/ He asked me if I was familiar with the movie. I said no, but after he gave a quick run down of the story I recognized the title. I sought his confirmation. “The kids movie?” He seemed annoyed by this and responded with “no the Disney movie”. I had to smile.

Martha Hall Findlay Ignatieff and Afghanistan

MHF agrees with Ignatieff. Harper lacks a strategy for Afghanistan. However she believes that this was evident all along and “Harpers lack of strategy is why I would have voted no”. This sets her and Ignatieff apart; both agree with the mission in principle, but she was more skeptical of Harper’s ability to pull it off.

Politically, this is a very clever approach and one Ignatieff and Kennedy should be very concerned about.

Ignatieff is found of saying that the Americans have made “every single mistake in Iraq and then some.” Other so called liberal hawks have said the same and over time a distinct line of criticism of the Iraq war has arisen. Namely, regardless of whether one believed in the Iraq mission in principle, Bush was never one to realize the hopes the pro war faction had for the war. Ignatieff has not yet gone as far as many other prominent liberal hawks in lamenting his support of the mission, but this line of criticism especially, in light of the most recent Lancet study estimating that upwards of 600,000 Iraqis have been killed in post war violence, leaves him with very little left to hold onto.

Where this bleeds into Ignatieff’s support of Afghanistan mission is that given Harper ideological closeness to the Neo Cons, his strong support of the Iraq war and yes his lack of clear strategy, Ignatieff, of all people, should have been suspicious of Stephen Harper’s ability to carry out the mission. Instead, despite a mere 6 hours of debate, he blindly threw his support behind Harper’s extension. Ignatieff should have been once bitten twice shy. Instead he backed both and laments how both missions have been prorogated; add to this his foot and mouth disease and it is little wonder why there are concerns about judgment – or lack there of.

MHF line is certainly an improvement on Dion’s line, for example. Under the guise that there was minimal debate in the house, Dion has still not offered an opinion on the mission. Dion is right; the reason he gave for voting no was a good reason. In a democracy, process matters. It is no reason, however, for not forming an opinion since.

As I said before, Kennedy should also be concerned about MHF line of questioning. Kennedy has raised questions about the mission and in many ways this has become the de facto Liberal position and the one MHF was taking aim at. That said, Kennedy has held out hope that the mission can still be transformed, but is his implicit belief that Harper, among others, can still right the ship, justified? MHF agreed with Ignatieff that Harper is not the right person for the job and I agree with them both. The problem for Ignatieff is that she is free to adopt this line and he, Mr. Johnny come lately, not.

Ignatieff Right: TDH Wrong

TDH: “Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including...wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial,...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." I fail to see where Israel is guilty of committing war crimes [so defined].” http://www.tdhstrategies.com/2006/10/israel-did-not-commit-war-crimes.html

You fail to see a lot of things. Granted Hezobollah’s leaders are full of shit, but bombing sewage treatment plants would be classified as a war crime according to the definition set forth under the Geneva Convention: “extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

Liberal Martha Hall Findlay Favors Legalization of Marijuana and Public Dental Care

I emailed out the following survey to all Liberal candidates. Martha Hall Findlay is the only one to respond thus far. The questions are in bold, her answers in full highlighted. I have responded to some. Most of her answers are fairly par for the course, but there are a few that are really interesting.

1) A hypothetical: If a vote on Afghan mission was held today and there had been rigorous debate on the subject, would you vote to extend the mission through 2009?

Only if (i) in the process of the debate I was persuaded, with all of the relevant facts, that this was the right decision; and (ii) in conjunction with a domestic debate, we also engaged with our NATO and UN partners in a thorough review of the circumstances, of what our REAL goals in Afghanistan are, whether those goals are in fact achievable, and if so, how---and in the course of that debate we also determined that it was the right thing to do.

I was trying to avoid the debate fig leaf answer, but alas to no avail. Anyway, it is not unreasonable to expect Liberal candidates to have an opinion one way or the other. They can not hide behind there was no debate so I do not have opinion on the matter forever. Of course, one may rethink one’s position if new evidence or arguments come to light.


2) Suppose next spring there was no let up in the number of Taliban attacks and in the number of Canadians dying, would you call for an end to the mission?

My answer to this follows on my answer to #1. We need to have a full review and analysis, not only domestically but also with our NATO and UN partners, to determine goals, and if they are achievable, then how we can best achieve them. In making this commitment, Canada knew, and knows, that it is and will continue to be difficult, and that lives will be lost. If that decision is made appropriately, given all of the facts and review, then we must not simply pull up and away from our commitment when things get tough. My father landed on D-Day and helped liberate Holland in WW II. If we Canadians decide that something is important and worth doing, then we do it, even when it's tough.

3) Given that Al Qaeda has singled Canada out because of our presence in Afghanistan and given that the alleged motivation of the Ontario 17 was our presence in Afghanistan , does our presence in Afghanistan make it more likely that Canada will be attacked by terrorists, home grown or otherwise?

I'm not sure that Canada is being "singled out" by Al Qaeda, given the presence of a significant number of NATO members in Afghanistan . However, the chances of increased threat is possible, and one of the many factors that I would insist on considering in that full and thorough review, with our NATO partners, that I'm calling for. Again, though---if it's the right decision, properly arrived at considering all of the factors, then we don't shrink from taking the right action because of fear.

Personally I do not think there is any doubt. Canada is more likely to be attacked because of our presence in Afghanistan . I dare say I am not alone in this regard.
“When asked about the likelihood of Canada being a terror target because of its military presence in Afghanistan , 56 per cent said we are more likely to be attacked.

This represents an increase of 18 per cent compared to one year ago. Thirty-four per cent say the military presence has no bearing; while five per cent say having soldiers in Afghanistan make us less susceptible to an attack."

As for Al Qaeda, right wing commentators take a perverse delight in noting that Al Qaeda has singled Canada out for attack. They see it as proof that Canadians are hopelessly naïve not to whole heartedly support the war on terror. What they fail to note, however, and this is testament to their complete lack of intellectual honesty, is why Al Qaeda singled Canada out for attack. Canada was singled out because of our presence in Afghanistan.

“What do your governments want from their alliance with America in attacking us in Afghanistan? I mention in particular Britain , France , Italy , Canada , Germany and Australia .

We warned Australia before not to join in the war in Afghanistan , and against its despicable effort to separate East Timor . It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sounds of explosions in Bali."

That being said the greater threat comes not from Al Qaeda per say, but from so called home grown terrorists.

All this begs the question is the increased likelihood of attack a reason for getting out of Afghanistan? I do not think anyone would claim it is a sufficient reason. However, given the futility of the mission, its cost both in human and financial terms and how little Canadian interests are furthered by our being there, it is reason enough.


4) Can NATO succeed in both stabilizing Afghanistan and destroying the country's number one industry?

I'm not sure which industry you believe is Afghanistan 's #1. If you mean the harbouring of terrorists and the growth of terrorism, then my answer is, unfortunately, that I don't know. That would be part of that larger, full review---a key component of those discussions would, of course, be whether that is an achievable goal. It is certainly one of the goals now, but whether it is achievable has come under some debate. If, however, you are referring to the opium trade, it's a different answer. I'm not sure that we should be so quick to insist on the destruction of the poppy crop. Western society is, after all, the biggest consumer of opiates. Suggesting a switch to other crops, such as corn, disregards the economic realities of corn being a crop that cannot earn nearly as much money, particularly when markets (including our own and those of the US and Europe ) are so subsidized and so protected. One alternative might be for the world to agree to pay decent prices for the crops for use in medicinal opiates, morphine for example, which is in fact in short supply.

I should have specified that I meant the opium crop, but is harbouring terrorists really an industry?

Marijuana


5) Does it make any sense to on the one hand decriminalize marijuana possession under the guise that current punishments are far out of proportion to the act while on the hand increasing the penalties for trafficking?

No. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol---it only spawned tremendous crime, some of it violent. We are seeing exactly the same thing with marijuana. There is an interesting study by the Fraser Institute ( www.fraserinstitute.ca) which suggests that continued criminalization of marijuana does not make sense—for the same reasons that prohibition didn't work for alcohol.

It should be noted that this is a rejection of official Liberal policy.

6) Are concerns about so called "potent pot" valid?

Yes, but the concerns would be more easily addressed if, with some legalization, the product could be properly controlled.

I disagree; the evidence that today’s pot is substantially stronger than the pot of old rests on pretty shaky ground.

Moreover, even if it were true, saying that potent pot is reason for keeping marijuana illegal is akin to saying that alcohol should be banned because gin has higher alcohol content than beer. Indeed, if anything potent pot should be welcomed. After all, the most prominent health effect related to marijuana is that it is usually smoked. The more potent the pot, the less people have to smoke to achieve the same high.

All that being said, MHF is using the de jour argument against marijuana legalization against the drug warriors. She is arguing that if potent pot is as much as a concern as they say it is, keeping it illegal makes the situation worse and not better. The potency of pot can be insured if regulated and it can only be regulated if legal.

7) The Senate committee on marijuana concluded that the "Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol"? Do you agree with this conclusion?
Yes.

Ok I think there is enough here to out MHF as a supporter of legalization.

Vacation Time


8) Canada lags behind far behind virtually every other Western nation in terms of the number vacation days its citizens are guaranteed. Is it time that Canada bridge the vacation gap?

EU minimum is 4 weeks
Switzerland 4 weeks
New Zealand 4 weeks (starting in 2007)
Norway 5 weeks

It is something worth reviewing, but it must be done in consideration of overall productivity, costs of employment for employers, and compensation for employees. There are interesting studies that show that with a bit more time off, people can in fact be more productive during the hours actually working.

My attitude is that if the entire Western world, minus the US can do it, so can we.


Euthanasia


9) Should Canada pass an euthanasia law, a la Holland ?

A very tough question. If we were to consider it, we would of course require incredibly strong parameters and controls. My preference is to educate more people on the benefits of living wills and let them make their own decisions about who might decide, when, not to resuscitate.

Passive euthanasia, (e.g., dehydration) is already a reality in Canada and is extremely common. All the proponents of most common form of legalized euthanasia are calling for is for option of making some of those passive cases active.


Dental care


10) Other Western countries (e.g., Germany, Finland and Britain)have public dental care. Should Canada?

Certain basic dental procedures should be considered as part of an overall health care plan. A lot of Canadians do not have access to dental insurance.

I am boarding the bus.


Ignatieff


11) Given his support for "Empire Lite", does Ignatieff have the potential to be as divisive a figure within the party as Tony Blair has become within his party?

Mr. Ignatieff and I disagree on a number of issues, but agree on many others. On the former, I would prefer to disagree, and engage in the vigorous discussion necessary for truly effective policy development with someone who holds views that are different than mine, but holds them honestly, than to agree with someone whose views are more politically expedient than honest.

This was not what I asked, but it was unreasonable to expect her to answer. Ignatieff has the potential to rip the party apart, a la Tony Blair; he also has to potential to good leader a la Tony Blair.


Heroin Maintenance


12) Do you support a proposed heroin maintenance program for Vancouver?

I am a full supporter of the Insite site in Vancouver.


The heroin maintenance and Insite are two different things. Insite is Vancouver’s safe injection site. Vancouver ’s heroin maintenance program involves, as should be obvious, giving a group of identified addicts heroin. The evidence for the effectiveness of both is overwhelming.


Books


13) Name the last 4 books you have read.

Andrew Cohen's "While Canada Slept"
Roy MacGregor 's "The Dog and I"
Andre Pratte's "Aux Pays des Merveilles"
Harry Frankfurt's "On Bullshit"

I have only read Frankfurt ’s “On Bullshit”; I liked it.


Movies


14) Name the last 2 movies you have seen.

Capote
United 93

Both are excellent.


Car


15) What was the first car you owned?

An old milk truck (the kind with the sliding doors) that had been converted into a camper—panelled in pine with an old black wood burning stove and stove pipe out the roof. My second car was a second-hand Toyota pick-up.

Wow.

My Pet Policy Idea


16) In order to attract more international grad students and just as importantly keep a higher percentage of international grad students in country after they graduate, Canada should offer citizenship to those foreign graduate students who complete a graduate degree from, and this important, a public Canadian university. Does this idea have any merit?

Yes, it has merit---it should be considered as part of a larger, but immediately needed review of our immigration point system. We'd like to encourage a reverse brain drain, but (as just one example) we also have thousands and thousands of people working here in the construction trades, illegally, because although we clearly need their skills, the point system doesn't recognize it.

I know I know; it was nasty to ask this question. She is not in a position to say that this is the dumbest idea she has ever come across. That said, I would like to ignore that fact; in fact, my head feels bigger already.

Many Thanks to Martha Hall Findlay for taking the time and for having the courage to take the survey.

Meeting Michael Ignatieff

I met Ignatieff. He is not as tall as I thought. He is around 6 foot to 6, 1. He is slight and his posture is bad. His narrow shoulders, his tendency to hold his hands tightly by his side and his poor posture extenuate his head. The way he holds himself physically seems to reflect his intensely introspective nature. This might sound odd, but if he was to become the next leader of the party, the party should see to it that he see a personal trainer. A good trainer will open his body up and metaphorically open him up to the Canadian people. If nothing else if he was to develop his lats, he would be less inclined to hold his arms so tight against his body and would instead spread them wider. This is would give his gesticulations a less tortured feel.

His first words to me and to those around me was to explain why he was wearing makeup. He said that he was made up for television not because he choice too, but because that is just what it is done. He mentioned this later too. He was right to mention it. It was quite noticeable. I presume he just did not have the time to take it off.

Once Ignatieff had made the rounds and we had all sang happy birthday to Sukh Dhaliwal, Ignatieff made his case for why he should be the next Liberal leader. It was obvious that he is comfortable in front of crowd, has a superb grasp of the English language and that his breath of learning and wealth of experience is great. His opening marks about the diversity in the Lowermainland were well laid out. They came off as intelligent observations of a seasoned traveler and not as pandering.

Ignatieff focused on three areas the environment, Immigration and Native issues. He first talked about his environment platform and of the three this was the best thought out and he had little trouble answering questions about it later. Of all the Liberal candidates his environmental platform appeals to me the most; those who argue that only carrots will do the trick are dreaming; some sticks are needed too; there needs to be a carbon tax.

The next area he hit on was immigration. His comments were all over the place and where not sufficiently underpinned by a well thought out argument. They seemed more like unconnected musings, however well informed, than well thought out policy. His views on family unification, for example, were, well, different. Indeed, no matter how nice it would be to let every adult immigrant to Canada bring their parents here, from a policy point of view, the idea makes little sense. The road to hell is paved with good intensions. The average immigrant to Canada is slightly older than your average Canadian. Needless to say, we should work to make the reverse true. After all, one of the primary justifications for high levels of immigration is that we need more immigrants to prevent a pension and health care crisis caused by a disproportionate number of baby boomers in the Canadian population. Allowing huge number of immigrant baby boomers only makes the problem worse – much worse.

That said, it was clear that Ignatieff opinions on the matter have been shaped in no small measure by his time in office and that he is someone who takes the concerns people bring to him very seriously. I am sure he was right in saying that 80% of what he does as MP relates to immigration; Speaking from personal experience, under funding and under staffing of Canada’s immigration department and its foreign embassies means that urban MPs have to pick up the slack and sometimes the pieces. It was nice to hear a politician acknowledge that the immigration system is massively under funded. I was also encouraged when he said that Canada needs more immigrants than what we are currently letting in. We do, but we need them to be younger.

Next on the agenda was Native self government and related topics, but before I elaborate I have a confession. In my opinion, Native self government may be the dumbest idea, from a policy perspective, the Liberals have ever championed. Furthermore, although some Liberal strategists might think that pandering to natives is a hinterland strategy that will lead to more Merasty miracles, this will only provide the Conservatives with all the benefits of a Willie Horton strategy in those aforementioned hinterlands without the running the danger of actually employing one. Ignatieff comments centered on wanting to make amends for past racist policies, wanting to increase the number of Native students in university and how impressed he was with the new crop of Native leaders. It was liberalism at its mushy guilt ridden worst.

Afterwards, Ignatieff answered questions from the gallery. One concerned Afghanistan. Another concerned the economic wisdom of his environmental policies in light of the fact that Washington is unwilling to adopt Kyoto. His answers were a study in contrasts. In answering the environmental question Ignatieff mentioned that properly crafted regulations would help incentivevize Canada’s oil and gas industry into becoming a world leader in producing greener technology; in the long term this would benefit Canada economically and not hurt it. In other words he gave a reasoned response. Conversely, when asked about Afghanistan he studiously avoided two areas people want to him to address: 1) is the mission doable? 2) How does Canada benefit from being there? Instead he assured us that the Taliban were awful people and implied that going to Afghanistan gave him some epistemic insight that others who have not been there have not had. It was an argument from authority and one I found it off putting. I know of no one who harbors any illusions about who the Taliban are. However there are those of us who are convinced that leaving is the lesser of two evils and Ignatieff needs to address our arguments.

I did not want to flog a dead hoarse that is Iraq, but just before Ignatieff left for the airport I had a chance to ask him about his Kurdish talking point he goes with whenever the subject of Iraq comes up and so went with it. For example :

“Q: What do you tell Liberal delegates who ask why you thought it right to support George Bush in Iraq when the Liberal Party of Canada had decided it would not?

A: What I say is, they have to understand what I saw in Iraq in 1992. I have been a human rights reporter and you get scorched by what you see. I saw what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds in 1992 and I decided there and then that I would stand with these people no matter what happens. And I've done so ever since.”

Given that Kurdistan has been a de facto independent state since 1992, I asked him why he thought the plight of the Kurds in 2003 was a compelling reason for regime change. He rehashed his all his reasons for going to war and so did really answer the question. I hope for his sake that he abandons this talking point before Dion and Rae force feed him the illogic of it.

If Ignatieff is going to hold off Dion and Rae, he is going to have to cry uncle on Iraq. In so doing, he is going to have come up with a different argument for why we should be in Afghanistan. His humanitarian argument for why we should be in Afghanistan inevitably bleeds back into his humanitarian argument for why he supported the Iraq war; that inevitably puts him in a world of hurt.
Not only is Ignatieff’s Kurdish talking point is fatally flawed, but Ignatieff decision to go only with his humanitarian argument with regard to Iraq has made things worse not and better. His only substantive argument for why we should be in Afghanistan is a humanitarian one and this argument inevitably bleeds back into his humanitarian argument for why he supported the Iraq war; that inevitably puts him in a world of hurt. Indeed, as any possible US target is going to have a less than stellar human rights record Ignatieff plays into the hands of those who charge that he would commit Canada to whatever Washington dreams up, albeit for different reasons. Ignatieff needs to cry uncle on Iraq and explain how the two missions are different.

His past attempts to distance himself from Iraq did not exactly bare fruit. Indeed the reasons he gave for why he would not have sent troops to Iraq apply just as readily to Afghanistan . Two in particular come to mind.

1) Ignatieff said that support of the population was vital and population did not support the Iraq mission. However, polls suggest that extending the mission has no better than support of half the population and polls showed at the time of the May vote that strong majority of Canadians were opposed to extending the mission.

2) Ignatieff claimed that a potential national unity crisis was reason enough for staying out of the Iraq war. That said, a terrorist attack, inspired by Canada 's presence in Afghanistan , could spilt the country apart, especially if Quebec is the victim. Currently the Afghan mission is opposed by what 70% of Quebecers. If Quebecers die as a result of us being there, the separatists will use it as a reason why Quebecers need their own country with its own foreign policy. Given what has just transpired in Ontario, and the fact that the accused were said to be motivated by Canada's role in Afghanistan and what happened in Spain and Britain, Ignatieff can not very well claim that chances of such an attack or not insignificant.

Ignatieff often says that he will hold Harper’s feet to the fire should he change the nature of the Afghan mission. However he does not say just what consequences are in store for Harper if he drifts off course. No one seriously believes, especially in light his refusal to cry uncle on Iraq, that Ignatieff would stop supporting the mission, for example. Furthermore as he came to power only in January he is only associated, rightly or wrongly, only with the Conservative mission. All told, the comment seems a throwaway aimed at placating his Afghan critics. What he desperately needs to do is this: He needs to sketch out the point at which he would consider abandoning the mission. This is not as daunting as it first seems. I would suggest he could change his benchmarks for success into reasons for reconsidering the mission.

"Q What are your benchmarks for Canadian success in Afghanistan?

A The Taliban offensive will probably run out of gas as the winter season comes. These things are seasonal. One benchmark of success is if we don't get a resumption next spring. If it comes back gangbusters in April '07, we do have a problem. The second benchmark is just intelligence co-operation. Are villagers helping us? Our moral legitimacy depends on us believing we are their friends and the Taliban their enemies. If we start to lose intelligence co-operation and help, that's a pretty good benchmark that something has gone badly wrong in our relationship.”

Overall impressions: Ignatieff says that Canada is a serious country and Canadians are serious people. I would like Ignatieff to name which countries are not. Anyway, Ignatieff needs to be less serious. Canadians might be “serious” people, but the liberal minded of us dream of doing a pirouette or two behind the Queen’s back. Ignatieff is often compared to Trudeau, but a better comparison is Ken Dryden. Ignatieff is serious, kind, considerate and empathic and is entirely undeserving of some of the attacks made on his character. He is, if nothing else, a good person. However, if Ignatieff is going to win, he is going to have to find in himself some of Trudeau’s swagger. Incidentally, Rae seems to be the only candidate right now with any sort of swagger. Failing that, perhaps Ignatieff could get away with championing a sexy, advant guard and largely peripheral issue. Those who know me know that I think the legalization of marijuana is such an issue.

Liberal Leadership Race: Candidates are Timid Unimaginative Comformists

Strangely, the candidates seem content run on the same platform that got the Liberals tossed from office back in January. Stranger still is the fact that the favorites have been the ones taking the chances (e.g. carbon tax) and the candidates with virtually nothing to loose are the ones playing it most safe.

Hedy Fry is the best example of a candidate who should be making noise, but is not. Indeed, despite the fact that Hedy Fry represents one of the most socially liberal ridings in Canada and the fact that she is at the end of her political career, she has been unwilling to roll the dice and make any controversial statements or bold policy proposals. What has playing it safe got her thus far? A paltry $15 grad in donations and the ghost of Prince George still has not been vanquished. Hedy Fry says the party needs more than just a fresh coat of paint. I could not agree more. However, if that is her position, it is time she put her money were her mouth is. Personally, I would love it if one of the candidates would line up behind one or more of the following.

4 weeks vacation for all Canadians

Legalization of marijuana

A promise to pull the troops out of Afghanistan

Euthanasia

Legalization of prostitution

Mandatory voting

Abolition of the senate

Abolition of the monarchy

Making Dental care part of health care

Willingness to tackle media concentration

It should be noted that during his first year in office, Trudeau decriminalized homosexuality, and lightened the restrictions on gambling, abortion and divorce. It is my hope that should the Liberals win the next election that they be as bold as Trudeau. As with claims about wanting to change the party, it means very little to invoke the ghost of Trudeau, as Fry and others have done, unless they are willing to act as boldly.

It should be noted that the above are certainly not new ideas and many are realities in Europe.

Ignatieff's Afghan Problem

Peace keeping means what it says. It involves keeping the peace between two identifiable warring factions who want peace and have invited third party in to keep it. It really only has a hope of succeeding when those groups are separated from one another by geography. In this sense Ignatieff is right about the Afghanistan mission and the others dead wrong. Afghanistan is not suited to peace keeping. Furthermore, as guerilla war supplants state on state violence as the dominant form of conflict, peacekeeping missions have become less and less useful. In this sense too Ignatieff is right, albeit for the wrong reasons, and his opponents are wrong. Peace keeping has had it day; it represents a proud chapter in Canada history, but that chapter has been written; let us move on. The question is to what.

Given that he is the only one willing to admit that peace keeping has had its day, it should come as no surprise that Ignatieff is the only candidate is to propose a replacement and for this he deserves still more credit. Ignatieff, however, proposes that the Liberals adopt a Neo Wilsonian doctrine that works in theory, but is a miserable failure in practice. In short, without Ignatieff the Liberals would have remained trapped in the past, but with him the Liberals are trapped between ideology and nostalgia.

Moreover, while Ignatieff "responsibility to protect" doctrine does not piggyback on US foreign policy in theory, it certainly does in practice. No other Western country has the economic, military, political and diplomatic wherewithal to intervene in situations that Ignatieff claims we have a duty to intervene and in the manner in which he advocates. If the US does not intervene, then the West will not intervene and the UN and other international bodies will certainly not intervene.

Ignatieff: "Multilateral solutions to the world's problems are all very well, but they have no teeth unless America bares its fangs."

http://empirelite.ca/ The relationship is not entirely a parasitic one though. The so called "liberal hawks" did much of the intellectual heavy lifting for the Bush administration prior to the Iraq War. If Ignatieff has his way, Canada will fill that role as well as offering token support.

Needless to say, being wedded to US foreign policy has it consequences. If the US attacks a Muslim country, an obvious consequence is an increased risk of terrorism, but more on that latter. Another one was mentioned by Ignatieff following the Iraq war. Motives matter. It is not enough that an intervention be justified on humanitarian grounds. Motives determine policy. As a result, if the motives of the interveners are not in the right spot the desired outcomes will likely not be achieved or worse. Ignatieff claims that he only recognized this with regard to Iraq after the fact. To date, Ignatieff has not, however, mentioned what motivates US policy in Afghanistan and how this might affect outcomes there.

As for Afghanistan, while many people may side with him and admire his past writings, the manner in which Ignatieff has defended the mission has angered people on both sides of the debate. His performance in the first Liberal leadership debate particularly irked people. During the debate Ignatieff claimed that the death of a Canadian soldier meant that if the house did not vote to extend the mission her death would have been in vain and by implication that the mission had merit by virtue of her death. "I supported the extension of the mission because that very day a brave soldier from Shilo, Manitoba, gave her life". http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/10/libs-sat.html?ref=rss Now, no one wants to see someone die for a mistake, but it is incredible that Ignatieff would imply that a mission is validated if soldiers have died carrying it out. That was not the worst of it though. He went to say suggest that voting against an extension meant that one did not “support our troops”. "I couldn't in good conscience stand up in the House of Commons and not vote for the extension of a mission when our soldiers' lives were on the line." The Star's Chantal Herbert rightly called him to task for this:

"Saturday, he said he felt he would have let the Canadian soldiers who had put their lives on the line in Afghanistan down if he had voted differently. The notion that support for our troops should mean support for the government's decisions on the deployment is one of Stephen Harper's most demagogic arguments. In a rebuttal to Ignatieff, Bob Rae was right to point it out."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1150064106473&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907622983

However bad these talking points are, what threatens to do the most damage to Ignatieff's reputation is his failure to acknowledge the Afghan elephant in the Canadian living room. Namely, Ignatieff has not acknowledged that our presence in Afghanistan greatly increases the chances that Canada will be targeted by terrorists, especially domestic ones. The arrest of the Ontario 17 has certainly driven this point home. According to the crown, Canada's Afghanistan policy was what motivated them. Canada is thus added to the list of countries targeted (Britain, Spain and Australia (the Lodhi case) and the US) by its own citizens because they were angered by their country's foreign policy. If a desire to speak the truth was not motivation enough, then Stephen Harper's denials should have been. Ignaiteff gains nothing by remaining silent. The Canadian people certainly do not believe Harper's propaganda about the Afghan mission making us safer.

"When asked about the likelihood of Canada being a terror target because of its military presence in Afghanistan, 56 per cent said we are more likely to be attacked.

This represents an increase of 18 per cent compared to one year ago. Thirty-four per cent say the military presence has no bearing; while five per cent say having soldiers in Afghanistan make us less susceptible to an attack."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060609/terrorism_poll_060609?s_name=&no_ads=

And it is not as if Ignatieff has not acknowledged a connection between foreign policy and terrorism before. For example:

"After 9/11, Islamic terrorism may have metastasized into a cancer of independent terrorist cells that, while claiming inspiration from Al Qaeda, no longer require its direction, finance or advice. These cells have given us Madrid. Before that, they gave us Istanbul, and before that, Bali. There is no shortage of safe places in which they can grow. Where terrorists need covert support, there are Muslim communities, in the diasporas of Europe and North America, that will turn a blind eye to their presence. If they need raw recruits, the Arab rage that makes for martyrs is still incandescent. Palestine is in a state of permanent insurrection. Iraq is in a state of barely subdued civil war. Some of the Bush administration's policies, like telling Ariel Sharon he can keep settlements on the West Bank, may only be fanning the flames."

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/ignatieff_less_evils_nytm_050204.htm

The longer Ignatieff sits by and lets Stephen Harper echo Bush and claim that Canadian foreign policy plays no role and that "we are a target because of who we are, and how we live, our society are diversity our values” the more damage is done to his strongest asset, viz., his reputation as public intellectual committed to open and honest debate, and the more ammunition he gives to those who claim that he a Republican lap dog. No public intellectual worth his salt, no matter where they stood on the mission, would tolerate Stephen Harper claiming that sending troops to Afghanistan will protect Canadians from domestic terrorists, who have never sat foot in Afghanistan, but who are, according to the crown, motivated to attack Canada because we have sent troops there.

Even Bin Laden has mocked Bush's claim that the reason Al Qaeda attacked the US was because Al Qaeda hate American freedoms.

"Oh American people, my talk to you is about the best way to avoid another Manhattan, about the war, its causes, and results. Security is an important pillar of human life. Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have proud souls, like the souls of the 19 people [killed while perpetrating the 11 September 2001 attacks], may God have mercy on them. We fought you because we are free and do not accept injustice. We want to restore freedom to our nation. Just as you waste our security, we will waste your security."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966817.stm It goes without saying that no Conservative has ever explained why Al Qaeda has singled Canada out, but that is not because they have not said. Al Qaeda has made it clear it is because of our presence in Afghanistan.

"What do your governments want from their alliance with America in attacking us in Afghanistan? I mention in particular Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia. We warned Australia before not to join in the war in Afghanistan, and against its despicable effort to separate East Timor. It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sounds of explosions in Bali.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/osamabinladen/tape.html In Al Qaeda speak, Canada's involvement in Muslim lands makes us part of the "far enemy"; the "near enemy" are the regimes of the Middle East. However much Harper might wish it, Bin Laden's words can wished away with the wave of his neo conservative wand. Bin Laden's words lay out an ideological and strategic Western citizens inspired by Al Qaeda's ramblings and as sure as the sun will set and rise some Canadians will be inspired and will consider carrying out acts terrorism so long as Canada is part of military operation in a Muslim country. Furthermore, pace Rae, Kennedy and Volpe, it likely does not matter what the nature of our military role in such missions is. Sending a "reconstruction team" is just as likely to get us targeted as peace making team. It is foolish to believe that anyone inspired by Al Qaeda would care to make such distinctions; most are too blinded by ideology lies and hate and those that are not will see the strategic reasons for erasing such a distinction.

His support for Afghanistan good harm Ignatieff in yet another way. According to Ignatieff, despite his strong support for war in Iraq, he would not have sent Canadian troops into the country. He gave several reasons. http://www.speakeasy.invisionzone.com/lofiversion/index.php/t7732.html One was that Canadians did not support going to Iraq and public support in a democracy matters. The other was that going to Iraq would have had significant consequences for national unity here at home. Separatists had historically made hay whenever Canada had sent troops abroad and this time would have been no different; it is hard to argue that Ignatieff is wrong in this regard. Iraq would have been a huge boast for them. That said, in trying to distance himself from the Iraq war, Ignatieff created more troubles for himself then he solved. For you see, the sword cuts both ways. As with Iraq, the Canadian people did not support extending the Afghan mission. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that separatists could not make hay with Afghanistan. Indeed, a terrorist attack, inspired by Canada's presence in Afghanistan, could spilt the country apart, especially if Quebec is the victim. Currently the Afghan mission is opposed by what 60% of Quebecers and huge number opposed the mission's extension. If Quebecers die as a result of us being there, the separatists will use it as a reason why Quebecers need their own country with its own foreign policy. Given what has just transpired in Ontario and the fact that the accused were said to be motivated by Canada's role in Afghanistan, Ignatieff can not very well claim that chances of such an attack or not insignificant.

Indeed for a schoolar who has made a reputation for himself sketching out the possible and actual consqunces of a war on terrorism, Ignatieff has been remarkably silent on what a terrorist attack motivated by Canada's involvment in Afghanistan might mean for the country. A further problem that Ignatieff surely recognizes but cares not to comment on is this.. If Canada is going to avoid a European like demographic meltdown, Canada will have to keep allowing in large numbers of immigrants. If a terrorist attack does occur, this may no longer be politically possible. We may find ourselves in same situation as Europe, namely, badly needing immigrants, but unable to do so because it is not politically possible.

One would think that given such risks, not to mention the costs, that Ignatieff would at least have a convincing argument for why the Afghan mission will succeed and, just as importantly, how success in Afghanistan furthers Canadian interests, but alas no. He has not said a peep. It would thus appear that while Ignatieff the intellectual might be worried about mounting coalition causalities, the introduction of suicide bombings into Afghanistan, riots in Kabul, aid agencies all but abandoning Afghanistan's hinterlands and recent reports that the coalition is loosing the battle for hearts and minds, Ignatieff the politician seriously believes that good intentions somehow guarantee success.

Thankfully not all supporters of the Afghan mission have sold their soul and their brain in the hopes of political glory.

Ahmed Rashid:

"Since 2003 when the Taliban first began to regroup, they have gradually matured and developed with the help of al-Qaeda, which has reorganized and retrained them to use more sophisticated tactics in their military operations. As recently as a year ago, the main Taliban groups were composed of a few dozen fighters; now each group includes hundreds of heavily armed men equipped with motorbikes, cars, and horses. They burn down schools and administrative buildings and kill any Afghan who is even indirectly associated with the government. In the south, they operate with impunity just outside the provincial capitals, which have become like Green Zones. Approximately 1,500 Afghan security guards and civilians were killed by the Taliban last year and some three hundred already this year. There have been forty suicide bombings during the past nine months, compared to five in the preceding five years. ....

The aid programs supposed to provide alternative livelihoods to farmers producing poppies or help them grow other lucrative cash crops are derisory when compared to what the drug smugglers offer. The best-functioning programs to help farmers are run by opium traffickers who provide improved varieties of poppy seeds, fertilizer, and better methods of cultivation to increase opium yields and even large-scale employment during the poppy harvest. When we compare Afghanistan's situation today with that of 2001, we see the country now needs to develop an entire alternative economy to replace the drug economy."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19098 (The Taliban have recreated themselves as the champion of the opium trade; defending Afghanistan's only viable crop and export from outsiders who only seek to destroy the opium trade, has proved very successful and explains why many experts fill the Taliban is winning the battle for hearts.)

How the Neo Cons paved the way for liberal Interventionists

Saying that intervening in foreign conflicts purely for humanitarian reasons is bad foreign policy is certainly legitimate -in fact, this is basically the position of the neocons who dominate the Bush administration (and recall that Bush himself opposed "national building" like NATO's eventual intervention in Yugoslavia after the spectacular failure of the UN in the 2000 election campaign).

The Bush administration has never has been a unified monolith. There are and have been fissures. State and DOD were frequently at loggerheads when Powell was still there and CIA and Vice President’s office were not exactly friendly. Moreover, there are very real differences between 41 and 43. Philosophically, realists Scowcroft and Baker simply do not see eye to eye with neo cons such Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. Before you interject I would certainly not accept Wolfowitz’s implication that what distinguishes the two camps is that one believes in democracy and the other in propping up tyrants. If I was to draw the line, I would say the main difference is how powerful each group believes the US to be.

Anyway, whereas you imply that Bush’s hostility to nation building in the 2000 campaign is continuous and compatible with post 911 rhetoric, I believe a major shift has occurred. After 911 the neo cons not only won over W, they won the battle for the Republican hearts and Republican minds. Their victory was so complete that in the lead up to the Iraq war realist critiques of the potential consequences of such an adventure went entirely unnoticed. The Republican base bought into Neo Con assumption that the UN was only ever a constraint on US power and rejected that realist belief that the multilateral institutions were a useful way of limiting potential costs and risks. Rumsfeld’s yammering about “old Europe”, "freedom Fries" etc were seen by the Republican base as evidence that Gulliver had at long last broken free of the Lilliputians. It was cause for celebration and no thought was given to the fact that such comments or campaigns might have caused the US a great deal of damage. Similarly, traditional realist laments about nation building went unnoticed for one simple reason. A key neo con assumption is that nation building, in the traditional sense, is not necessary. This is the main reason for the complete lack of planning in Iraq. Society is organic. Free it and the market from various “unnatural” restraints and it will flourish all by its own. The Republican base swallowed this assumption whole. With concerns over nation building out of the way, the Republicans were able to play up the humanitarian angle to a much greater extent then they would have had such a campaign occurred before 911 and in the process draw closer the liberal interventionists/ “liberal hawks”. (Sure the administration focused primarily on WMD, but Republican chattering classes, most notably those at the weekly Standard, and the right wing think tanks certainly pushed transformative power of democracy and the market line.)

For me whether Ignatieff can offer a convincing reply to this question is the litmus test that determines whether he is legitimately a liberal interventionist or merely an academic apologist for the Bush administration's imperial fantasies.

Look there is always going to be a decent humanitarian case for following the Bush administration on any given adventure. After all, the type of places the Americans are limited to attacking openly are always going to tokens of world’s worst. That is why the rise of neo conservatism has made me dislike liberal interventionism a lot more than I used to. Not constrained by with usual realist laments, the project for new American Century promised to turn liberal interventionists into kids in a candy store. They insured that no one would be attacking them from the right flank at a time when the post 911 zeitgeist in the States had muted the left wing of the Democratic party. In return, these so called "liberal Hawks" did the intellectual heavy lifting for Bushco on the Iraq war.

Pramatic Turn

I would love it if a Liberal candidate made a speech resembling the following.

Peace keeping means what it says. It involves keeping the peace between two identifiable warring factions who want peace and have invited third party in to keep it. It really only has a hope of succeeding when those groups are separated from one another by geography. As guerilla war supplants state on state violence as the dominant form of conflict, peacekeeping missions have become less and less useful. In this sense Ignatieff is right and Rae, Volpe and Layton are dead wrong. Peace keeping has had it day; it represents a proud chapter in Canada history, but that chapter has been written; let us move on. The question is to what.

Ignatieff is the only candidate is to propose a replacement and for that he deserves credit. Ignatieff, however, proposes that we adopt a Neo Conservative doctrine that works in theory, but is a miserable failure in practice. So here we Liberals are, trapped between ideology and nostalgia.

It is time we Liberals take a pragmatic turn. This should be a simple enough, but alas I fear no. For most Canadian politicians foreign policy is a subject they would prefer to forget much less discuss and is only made tolerable for us Liberals by a number refined and ready made platitudes. Do not be fooled by Ignatieff’s muscular Victorian venire either, a puritanical adherence to altruism still has domain over all parties and one asks “how does this benefit Canada?”, “what are the risks?” or “how likely is such a mission to succeed?” at ones own peril. Good intentions and moral obligation are still seen as magical guarantees of a mission’s success. Ignatieff’s position is just more in keeping with Conservative axiom that when it comes to foreign policy all one need do is to puff out one’s chest and hope for the best and a different set of platitudes. In keeping with such a testosterone driven attitude, Ignatieff followed Stephen Harper’s lead and claimed that anyone who opposed the extension of the Afghan mission does not “support the troops”. Where Ignatieff differs from Harper is that he does not believe that our obligation to protect does not in theory depend upon American’s willingness to intervene even if it does in practice.

As Liberals, we must not be tempted either of these two sets of platitudes. We must be more worldly in outlook. We must start asking questions that we have either repressed, or were afraid to ask. Only once we start asking the more mundane questions about how this or that policy benefits Canada, what are the chances of it succeeding, will we create a more realistic picture for the Canadian public. As representatives of the people, we owe the public that much; we owe them the truth.

For starters this means removing the fig leaf of Conservative procedural misconduct and having the very debate about Afghanistan we, rightly claim the Canadian people missed out on. In doing so, pace Ignatieff, scared cows are not the only wild animal to be avoided. We must also be wary of elephants and guerillas. Let us not pretend, for example, that our Afghanistan policy will not have domestic consequences. We have recently seen that it does. We can not pretend, as Stephen Harper does, that sending troops to Afghanistan will not protect us from terrorists who have never set foot in that country, but who wish us ill will because we have sent troops there. We must accept that in a democratic society, politicians have a duty to base their arguments on the truth and that they do not have the option of designing arguments to obscure it even if believe our hearts in the right place.