Featured:
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 04:26 PM
The good soldier
In an auditorium at the Woodrow Wilson School late yesterday afternoon, Romeo Dallaire held a roomful of keenly admiring Princeton University students and faculty pretty much spellbound for 90 minutes. Dallaire’s is a potent mix of moral suasion and authentic heroism.
His performance was by turns witty, spiced with plain talk, somewhat wandering yet always heartfelt. The applause at the start and at the conclusion of his presentation was concussive. In a sense, he’s our version of Mandela; perhaps without the same degree of political savvy, but with the unmistakable appeal of a great man of action.
Beyond the usual call to arms regarding the Northern world’s ignorance of and indifference to the suffering of the innocents in places like the Congo and Darfur, Dallaire addressed head-on a question from the audience concerning our involvement in Afghanistan. If we are to meet the stated objectives “we’ll have to be there for 40 years. We’ve been in Cyprus for 45 and that isn’t such a big deal.” That said, he has recanted his support for maintaining combat troops. “These guys are burned out. Some of these troops have more combat time than World War Two vets.”
I asked Dallaire afterwards whether in principal he would support Canada maintaining a combat presence so long as the military increased its overall contingent of combat-ready troops “Absolutely. This [promising to reduce and or eliminiate Canada’s commitment in Afghanistan] is a purely political exercise. When the cuts come we mustn’t reduce our commitment to recruitment.”
At this point I wanted to ask whether Dallaire was speaking as a Senator or as a retired lieutenant-general. But in a flash, with a confident smile and jaunty wave, he trotted off looking for a mess hall and some grub; the good soldier marching on.
Link to this post
Sunday, November 8, 2009 02:19 PM
Hang on to your toques
Being a Canadian for any extended period in the United States can be a, er, challenging experience. Last Friday night I was out with an otherwise intelligent American who found Canada a puzzling notion. “It’s like an attic on our house with thirty million people in it.” On that issue I demurred but suggested a variety of ways in which Canada might otherwise be characterized. My interlocutor now even more obviously befuddled replied: “So you take this Canadian thing pretty seriously.”
With this observation ringing in my ears I watched an hour or so of the House debate on the health-care bill. On the Republican side, the terms Canadian, British and/or European became, in this context, oft repeated euphemisms for baby-killing freedom-hating pinko nihilist. I found the whole thing so distressing I got up from the common area in a university building where I was watching and, sotto voce, spoke from the heart: "What a load of crap."
A women with a broad South Jersey accent turned on me and said: "I suppose you're a democrat." I looked at her with all the contempt I could muster and said: "Madame I'm a Canadian, which by your standard makes me a Bolshevik.” Actually I didn't have the nerve to say that (because I'm Canadian) but oh my goodness I wish I had.
In the end, the late evening vote in the house was a near-run thing (220-215) with 39 Democrats voting against. A fact of American life is that “freedom” is the foundational animating priority of political life. To the extent that Republicans can drive a wedge into the “new deal” Democratic party’s commitment to equity in health care, renders the Canadian perspective on the issue somewhere between Enver Hoxha era Albania and Cuba. The fight in the Senate will no doubt ratchet up the ideological vitriol. Pure laine conservatives like Mitch McConnell will no doubt have things to say about Canada’s inherent health-care depravities. Hang on to your toques.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 12:41 PM
Why we matter
This article by Jill Mahoney on Canada’s diaspora caught my eye last week and given my turtle pace it took me until now to sort out what it might mean. The piece turns on a report issued by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada indicating that a lot Canadians leave the country and don’t come back.
“More Canadians than ever before have moved out of the country, according to a new report that says 2.8 million live permanently overseas.
The trend is being fuelled by naturalized Canadians who are three times more likely to leave the country than people born here. Over a 30-year period, the study estimates that at least 27 per cent of these immigrants who obtain Canadian citizenship would move away.
‘You have to really ask yourself, are we sort of a revolving door here?’ said Don DeVoretz, a senior fellow at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada who wrote the study.
‘We bring people in, we have one of the most aggressive immigration recruitments in the world. ... We've always lost a substantial number, but now we're losing more. And so I think that's something to be concerned about.’
The report, which is to be released today, raises policy implications ranging from voting and citizenship to taxes and the work force. Canadian citizens have the right to return at any time, a reality Prof. DeVoretz said could increase pressures on the country's health-care, pension and welfare systems.
The 2.8 million estimate represents about 8 per cent of the total Canadian population. The Asia Pacific Foundation likens the Canadian diaspora to a ‘missing province.’"
Why is this a problem? For the most part Canadians, naturalized or not, live strung out along the border with what is, at least until lately, the most powerful engine of commercial and military prowess on Earth. That ambitious Canadians move to make a go of it by heading to the States (more than a third of our “diapora”) puts us in league with just about every country on earth.
And here’s the thing: we speak the same language and even when we “leave” Canadians cross and recross the border in order to, among other things, carry on the largest bilateral trading relationship on Earth. It seems to me that if fewer Canadians were leaving to establish promote and propogate that relationship this would be a genuine cause for concern.
Last weekend I was in New York for the marathon. Whereas the representatives of other countries made kind of a big deal about their presence (flags on their shirts cheering sections along the course) the 1,324 Canadian finishers went about their business without quite so much fuss. I’d like to think that this reflects the quiet cosmopolitanism that’s always marked Canada’s contribution to the world.
Friday, October 30, 2009 12:46 PM
The brutal truth
Lots of dung flying around Ottawa as the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition gives himself, his staff and his party a messy though obviously necessary high colonic. My man Adam Radwanski wondered lately whether, in the event, Ig needed to be quite as brutal as he obviously was:
"If [Davey] wasn't doing a good enough job of that, he deserved to be replaced; at the level he was working at, hurt feelings can't be too big a concern. But you have to wonder if he really needed to be humiliated in the process. … Politics is a brutal business. But it doesn't need to be quite as brutal as Ignatieff made it."
I asked a favourite correspondent what he made of Radwanski's critique:
“Adam has it wrong. ... Knowing several of the players and their version of events gives me an opportunity to cite one of my favorite cautions to the overly feverish or judgemental about the motives in this game:
‘Never credit conspiracy (or for that matter cruelty) what simple incompetence can adequately describe.’ - Napoleon.
If Adam had spent more than a few months in political life he might have had the acquired wisdom to ask before leaping to a silly conclusion: ‘Why would anyone inflict such a wound on themselves deliberately?’
The change was very badly executed by folks who sadly have developed a reputation for poor execution, including the dispatch yesterday of a ‘lorem ipsum’ placeholder text as a press release! And then there was Warren Kinsella’s usual tasteful work in a Liberal flyer featuring bodybags…”
However he got there, Peter Donolo’s job is to improve Ig’s staff work to the point that it can’t be an excuse for whatever misfortune befalls the leader. At that point, it better be onward and upward to Sussex Drive; otherwise this moment will be remembered as the early skirmishes leading to Ig’s Waterloo.
Monday, October 26, 2009 02:51 PM
Tortured logic
Lately I’ve been horning around the New York area and found myself attending a couple of big-wig academic talks. Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist and professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School (not to mention New York Times hack) gave a talk last Wednesday in which he laid out the thesis of his new book The Return of Depression Economics (actually an update of 1999 book he wrote about the collapse of the Asian economies).
According to the great man, unless the United States actually increases the amount of government subsidy to spur growth in the economy – and sooner rather than later – he’s concerned that the States could repeat the so called “lost decade” suffered by the Japanese economy throughout the 1990s. Following the collapse of a credit bubble Japan dried up it’s financial resources sustaining its financial institutions – so called “zombie-firms” – and as a result suffered relatively high levels of post-war unemployment combined with virtually no growth.
If Krugman is anywhere near right, you’d imagine that this could be bad news for Stephen Harper. In fact I suspect that an economy that – as Krugman put it – “just sort of bumps along” rather than coming to the edge of the abyss (as it did last fall) probably favours the Tories since it’s unlikely that any alternate policy arrangement would make much of a difference. In the meantime Steve-O keeps the cash tap open for Tory and swing ridings and waits for the Grits to knife Ig in the front.
And speaking of which, on Friday evening I sat through a talk at the Institute for Advanced Study by Georgetown University law professor David Cole. Cole is the leading researcher/advocate on so-called torture light. He’s been writing and speaking non stop on the importance of holding accountable the various levels of the bar and the judiciary who green lit the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program. Particularly gruesome was his rehashing of a series of secret memos from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel which even after the enhanced techniques had come to light, and even after the administration had publically repudiated them, continued to provide a legal justification for their continued use. What Cole points out is that these weren’t hacks and yes men doling out this advice but “the best of the best,” former Supreme Court clerks and at least one sitting federal circuit court judge, Jay Bybee author of the infamous Bybee memo.
It’ll be interesting to see what use in an election campaign the Tories make of Michael Ignatieff’s book The Lesser Evil, which provided an intellectual justification for enhancing interrogation techniques. It’s a two-edged sword for sure as Canada’s record in Afghanistan in this regard isn’t exactly spotless.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 05:20 PM
We’re No. 7! We’re No. 7!
A couple of days ago Bono — exercising his prerogative as the biggest rock star on the planet and a “contributing columnist” to The New York Times (pretty tough to be a non-contributing columnist, though I’d give it a go if the money was right) — wrote the following in the pages of his employer:
“In the same week that Mr. Obama won the Nobel, the United States was ranked as the most admired country in the world, leapfrogging from seventh to the top of the Nation Brands Index survey — the biggest jump any country has ever made. Like the Nobel, this can be written off as meaningless ... a measure of Mr. Obama’s celebrity (and we know what people think of celebrities).
But an America that’s tired of being the world’s policeman, and is too pinched to be the world’s philanthropist, could still be the world’s partner. And you can’t do that without being, well, loved. Here come the letters to the editor, but let me just say it: Americans are like singers — we just a little bit, kind of like to be loved. The British want to be admired; the Russians, feared; the French, envied. (The Irish, we just want to be listened to.) But the idea of America, from the very start, was supposed to be contagious enough to sweep up and enthrall the world.”
In light of all this I wondered (in addition to wondering why The Times lets Bono wank all over the page like that) what on earth was this Nation Brands Index. Turns out its an annual measure put out under some fancy corporate title by a guy named Simon Anholt.
According to his bio Simon is: “an independent policy advisor, author and researcher. He specialises in national identity and reputation, public diplomacy and the 'brand images' of nations, cities and regions. Anholt developed the concepts of the 'nation brand' and 'place brand' in the late 1990s, and today plays a leading role in this rapidly expanding field… During the last 12 years, Simon Anholt has advised the governments of more than 40 countries on questions of national identity and reputation, public diplomacy, trade, tourism, cultural and educational relations, export and foreign investment promotion. He works closely with heads of state, heads of government, ministers, private sector and civil society leaders in a series of unique one-day policy planning workshops called conversazioni.”
Yikes.
Anyway below is a comparison of the lists in 2009 and 2008.
Chart provided by GfK Custom Research America.
In case you missed it where the United States jumped seven spots we dropped three spots from fourth to seventh.
Holy crap.
So I wrote to Simon and asked what on earth we were doing wrong in order to fall off a cliff like that. And lo and behold he responded:
“I suspect because in the absence of any very detailed knowledge of, or familiarity with, Canada, most people see it as a simple stereotype: a kind of ‘not-America’ or ‘America through the looking glass’. So when the US is viewed negatively, Canada is viewed positively, but when the US returns to favour - as it is now doing - then Canada loses meaning and relevance. If people feel they can trust America, they no longer need Canada. Not a great situation, to have your national reputation tied to someone else's.”
I asked Si what he though we could do about that but I’ve yet to hear back. One thing is clear. It seems we matter somewhat less that we did before on account of Barack’s sucking all the air out of the room. And soon enough he’s going to to give his flock health care or a reasonable facsimillie. Thank God he’s still committed to extraordinary rendition or next year we’d probably drop below Saudi Arabia.
Friday, October 16, 2009 04:19 PM
Cheap shots and fish wrap
“A man’s reach should exceed his grasp” wrote Browning, “or what’s a heaven for?” On the other hand If you can’t be petty, small-minded and vindictive on your own blog then what’s an Internet for?
Somebody who goes by the handle Kathryn C wrote in the comments section of my last post:
Tthe Globe never fails to show Ignatieff looking awkward in [their] photos. Very cheap, although a clearly effective strategy to bolster the CPC smear campaign. Like using the term 'Iggyfest 2009'.”
Kathryn: (if I may call you Kathryn) That’s not cheap ideology; that’s cheap humour. There’s a difference.
And in other unrelated news John Ibbitson writes today:
“One way or another, the opposition parties will have to find some way to keep this government alive through the rest of this year or face the consequences at the polls. Parliament will then recess until the end of January. And with February comes the Olympics, and who wants an election during the Olympics?
For 17 days, Canadians will become Americans – fiercely patriotic, waving the flag with abandon, cheering on our athletes and celebrating what everyone hopes will be a magnificent games that will make all Canadians proud to be Canadian.
This is not a time to bring down a government.”
Fair comment. But I have to ask. If Liberians, Lesothans, Agentines and/or Algerians wave their flags with abandon and cheer their athletes does that make them Americans? Ibbitson just got back from a stint in the Excited States and as a sometime resident of the tri-state area myself, I sympathize. But his is nonetheless a deeply parochial view and ought not to be foisted on fellow citizens, especially by the national fish wrap.
Thursday, October 15, 2009 03:45 PM
More like Boris
Iggyfest 2009 features for the moment, in the face of plummeting poll numbers, a feeding frenzy of free advice for the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Besides beseeching him to employ a full time singing coach, I’m weighing in with two semi- serious suggestions — Boris Johnson and high speed trains. The latter first.
Earlier this week, Ig bravely and commendably championed the environment as a key plank in his party’s platform. I say bravely because during the last election campaign the then-leader (whose name Grits dare not even breathe) rode that issue like Slim Pickens on the back of an A-bomb to oblivion and beyond. The problem, of course, is that Canadians who didn’t vote for the Grits in record numbers last time might be reminded why when confronted with yet another environmental manifesto. Which brings me to high-speed trains. Ig needs to keep beating that drum.
In just about every respect, a network of these devices along high-traffic corridors will wed virtue to self interest in a manner that only the federal government can provide. It is in short the quintessential Liberal issue. Besides alleviating the shame of Canada’s being the only member of the G8 without high-speed rail, according to a piece in last June’s Walrus, “high-speed trains use about one-third the energy of flying — and one-fifth that of driving — such a line would dramatically slash carbon use, just when caps and taxes designed to reduce carbon consumption start to take effect.” Plus there would be a tangible economic benefit to potential Liberal voters in communities along the lines (increased housing prices, readier access to urban labour markets etc etc).
More’s the political point, it would allow Ig to transcend the usual Liberal winging and cringing. Which brings me to Boris Johnson.
There’s not much that comes out of the Tory mayor of London’s mouth that I agree with. But he is nevertheless entertaining and good value. The reason is that he’s forever combative in favour of his cause. Lately he took on Britain’s toughest TV interlocutor Jeremy Paxman and winningly tore his nemesis a new one. When he asks Paxman why he doesn’t “get a proper job?” you can practically hear Little Britain bleating in agreement. Johnson is relentlessly on offence which is exactly where Ig need to be if he is to avoid the fate of his immediate predecessor.
Saturday, October 10, 2009 02:35 PM
Steve and Betty
This morning’s canned contretemps pitting the Prime Minister against the GG as to as to who or what constitutes Canada’s head of state sent me scurrying to reread Walter Bagehot’s brilliant 19th century essay advocating constitutional monarchy - specifically British constitutional monarchy - over the republican model.
Bagehot had a particular genius for putting his thesis squarely, succinctly and in plain language. To wit:
"To state the matter shortly, royalty is a government in which the attention of the nation is concentrated on one person doing interesting actions. A Republic is a government in which that attention is divided between many, who are all doing uninteresting actions. Accordingly, so long as the human heart is strong and the human reason weak, royalty will be strong because it appeals to diffused feeling, and Republics weak because they appeal to the understanding… The nation is divided into parties, but the crown is of no party. Its apparent separation from business is that which removes it both from enmities and from desecration, which preserves its mystery, which enables it to combine the affection of conflicting parties--to be a visible symbol of unity to those still so imperfectly educated as to need a symbol."
And therein resides Stephen Harper’s unassailable advantage in advocating for The Queen’s eminence over and above the Governor General’s. To the extent that Canadians bother to think about this stuff, Rideau Hall runs a sorry second in the national imagination to Buckingham Palace.
How else to explain our history of turning out in droves to see Betty Windsor when she comes to call. The GG is at best ersatz and by-association - what the great Jack Farr once referred to as “finger lake” royalty. Betty’s the real deal. To the extent that Harper portrays himself (and is seen to be) defending Betty’s honour against back-door republicanism, it’s a win. To the extent that he’s seen doing that against a Liberal-appointed usurper, it’s a win-win.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009 06:22 PM
Our man and his mission
Generally speaking The New York Times is the avatar/quintessence of on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand journalism. That is to say, that when reporting any conflict wherein one side is perpetrating an obvious injustice on another, they’ll twist themselves into editorial knots in order to create the appearance of disinterest, objectivity and balance. With that in mind, I invite you to read the lead paragraphs of the following article that appeared in that paper yesterday under the title: Honduran Security Forces Accused of Abuse:
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Rosamaria Valeriano Flores was returning home from a visit to a public health clinic and found herself in a crowd of people dispersing from a demonstration in support of the ousted president, Manuel Zelaya. As she crossed the central square of the Honduran capital, a group of soldiers and police officers pushed her to the ground and beat her with their truncheons.
She said the men kicked out most of her top teeth, broke her ribs and split open her head. “A policeman spit in my face and said, ‘You will die,’ ” she said, adding that the attack stopped when a police officer shouted at the men that they would kill her.
Ms. Valeriano, 39, was sitting in the office of a Tegucigalpa human rights group last week, speaking about the assault, which took place on Aug. 12. As she told her story, mumbling to hide her missing teeth, she pointed to a scar on her scalp and to her still-sore left ribs.
Since Mr. Zelaya was removed in a June 28 coup, security forces have tried to halt opposition with beatings and mass arrests, human rights groups say. Eleven people have been killed since the coup, according to the Committee for Families of the Disappeared and Detainees in Honduras, or Cofadeh.
Try as they might, even The Times is having trouble providing “balance” in what is rapidly turning into a hemispheric disgrace. Today arrives a press release from our very own Dudley Do Right, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs Peter Kent (who’s daring do I’ve discussed in these precincts before), telling us he’s off to a meeting of the OAS in Honduras to set the matter straight.
‘We are hopeful that the mission will help advance the process of national dialogue and reconciliation involving representatives of both parties,’ said Minister of State Kent.
Presumably by “both parties” Kent means, on the one hand, the party getting its teeth kicked in and their heads split open, on the other, the party doing the kicking and the splitting.
Douglas Bell Contributors
Douglas Bell
Douglas Bell is a Toronto-based writer and occasional actor. He wrote for and acted in CBC TV's The Newsroom. His first book Run Over (Random House Canada) was short-listed for the Toronto book award. Recently he wrote the Spectator blog for TorontoLife.com. He has at one time or another canvassed door to door for all parties save the Marxist Leninists.