Featured:
Saturday, November 21, 2009 09:53 AM
Advice for the PM
On Thursday morning, to the apparent surprise of some observers, I argued on this blog that Canadians needed a public inquiry to get to the bottom of the allegations of torture and cover-up that Richard Colvin had made the day before in front of a parliamentary committee. After watching the Conservatives’ performance for the past two days, I’d say that Prime Minister Stephen Harper also needs a public inquiry--only more so.
Legitimate questions can be asked as to why Mr. Colvin did not blow the whistle earlier, which would have saved anywhere from 220 to 600 Afghans from allegedly being tortured. However, to attack his credibility, as Conservative ministers have been doing, is both pathetic and reprehensible. And to demand first-hand evidence, as they’ve also been doing, is precisely the same dodge that bureaucrats used to cover their asses in the Maher Arar affair.
Let’s face it: Even the government recognizes that its defense is in tatters and that it is looking mean to boot, which may explain why it is re-calibrating its strategy. However, to parade senior officials before a parliamentary committee, as a report in today’s Globe suggests is what we’re about to see, is unlikely to work very well either, based on my experience in similar situations.
Mr. Harper has been out of the country while all this has been going on. He will have an opportunity, but only one, to wipe the slate clean on this first day back in the House of Commons. He’d be wise to punt the issue to a judicial inquiry, a forum that is more likely to give ministers and officials a fair hearing. Unless, that is, his government truly has something to hide, and figures that having Conservative MPs stonewall, obstruct and obfuscate is the only way to try to save his skin.
(Photo: Les Perreaux/The Canadian Press)
Link to this post
Friday, November 20, 2009 09:46 AM
In other Afghanistan news...
Behind its firewall, Le Devoir reports that MPs will not be asked to approve Canada’s post-2011 mission. Its source? A Conservative anonymouse who tells reporter Alec Castonguay:
“A debate and a vote in the Commons is only necessary to approve military deployments abroad. The post-2011 mission will not constitute a military deployment, so there is no obligation to hold a vote in the House.”
Over at the National Post, we learn that the Karzai government will again not vote at the UN in favour of the Canadian resolution censuring Iran for its human rights record — and that Canada will again “turn a blind eye” to its vote. Canada has been tabling this resolution since the 2003 torture and murder of Canadian-Iranian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi. The Post quotes an anonymous diplomat as follows:
"Iran is a big and powerful neighbour of Afghanistan, and Canada understands the Afghan government's position that it can't be seen voting against Tehran on the world stage."
In the Washington Post, we learn that the Obama Administration is in the process of kissing and making up with Hamid Karzai. The Post serves up a fascinating account of how the relationship soured since the presidential election that’s well worth reading.
In the New York Times, we learn that Hillary Clinton is now the key U.S. link to the Karzai government. And Ms. Clinton dishes up a worthy response to Malalai Joya, described in today’s Globe and Mail as ‘the bravest woman in Afghanistan ’:
“When Mr. Karzai first took office in 2002, she noted, there were one million students in Afghanistan, virtually all boys. Today, there are seven million, 40 percent of them girls. She said Mr. Karzai deserved some credit for that, as well as for other advances during his tenure.”
Across the pond in London, the Independent reports that Prime Minister Gordon Brown and three cabinet ministers have sent an email to wavering Labour backbenchers to shore up support for the Afghanistan war.
Here are some excerpts from that email:
“The reason Britain has sent military forces to Afghanistan is clear – our national security is at stake. Afghanistan was where al-Qa’ida trained and planned terror attacks – including September 11.”
“Our strategy in Afghanistan is supported by the United Nations, 43 troop-deploying countries, and many others who contribute funding and civilian staff. We do not operate alone.”
“The training of Afghan forces is central to our mission. Success will be when the Afghan National Army and National Police are strong enough to provide for their own security.”
“Our strategy is combined with strong support for Pakistan in its efforts against terrorism and extremism on the other side of the Afghan-Pakistan border… “If the coalition withdraws from Afghanistan prematurely, it could have enormous consequences for Pakistan.
“We have increased our military forces in Afghanistan progressively from 5,500 in the autumn of 2006… to around 9,000.
“On 14 October we announced our intention to increase this further to 9,500 subject to certain conditions being met … We will not implement this increase unless we are sure the balance of risk taken on equipment is judged by the military to be acceptable – and unless there is an agreed strategy with fair burden-sharing across the international coalition and unless the new Afghan government steps up to the challenges it faces, including corruption.
“Above all, we would never commit British troops to Afghanistan unless we were convinced that our security demanded it.”
“We are committed to ensuring our forces in Afghanistan have the best possible support. Military spending on Afghanistan – from the Reserve, on top of the defence budget – is now at £390,000 per soldier fighting, compared to £180,000 in 2006.”
(Photo: AFP/Getty Images)
Thursday, November 19, 2009 07:53 AM
We need a public inquiry
Many Canadians will no doubt be shocked by the allegations about torture and cover-up that Richard Colvin made before a parliamentary committee yesterday, particularly in light of the timing.
In the past month, former chief of the defence staff Rick Hillier has been cheered on his book tour across the country. Last week, there was an outpouring of support for the military among Canadians surrounding Remembrance Day celebrations. And the Conservative government’s release of a new Citizenship Guide, which elevated the role of the military, was greeted by loud huzzahs.
However, it’s important to remember that this is not the first time serious allegations have been made against members of the Canadian Forces. In fact, in the so-called Somalia affair of 1993, the allegations were more serious; namely, that Canadian soldiers themselves had beaten and shot Somali civilians in the back, and that they were directly responsible for the death of Shidane Arone. Nor, is it the first time that a cover up by very senior people has been alleged. In fact, in that latter case, it could be said that the cover-up reached the highest levels of government after Jean Chrétien shut down the Commission of Inquiry before it could complete its hearings.
There’s still much that we don’t know after hearing Mr. Colvin’s allegations. For example, though names of some very senior officials were mentioned, we haven’t heard their side of the story; nor do we know whether the cover-up extended to the political level. If it did, we don’t know when/whether the Prime Minister was informed, and, if he wasn’t informed, why not. Nor do we know why Mr. Colvin did not blow the whistle earlier, while the torture was still taking place and he was being rebuffed by very senior officials. None of these questions is likely to be answered without taking testimony under oath in a public inquiry, which is what the opposition parties should now be pushing for.
---
Update In replying to opposition demands for a public inquiry during Question Period, Defence Minister Peter MacKay attempted to poke holes in Richard Colvin’s “unsubstantiated” testimony. And he stressed the need for due process.
In fact, there could be no better arguments for holding a public inquiry.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009 08:56 AM
Our politicized bureaucracy
Checking out Kady O’Malley’s blog yesterday, I learn that Michael Ignatieff’s new director of policy, Brian Bohunicky, was still listed in the government phone book as director-general of the international markets bureau at Agriculture Canada. Prior to joining the public service, I read in The Globe and Mail, Mr. Bohunicky served as a political aide to two Liberal ministers.
This morning, perusing La Presse, I read that Mario Laguë, the new director of communications also had a political career — that's him perched over Paul Martin's right shoulder in the photo — before joining the public service and eventually becoming assistant secretary to the cabinet for communications in the Privy Council Office. Moreover, delving into The Globe and Mail archives, I find a dispatch by Daniel Leblanc, the reporter rightly credited with having broken open the sponsorship scandal, which suggests that Mr. Laguë was not exactly a public servant “comme les autres”:
“An affidavit prepared by the Public Service Commission for the Gomery inquiry sheds new light on the controversial hiring of a former Liberal aide to head the sponsorship program in 1999, including the role of a federal official who would become an aide to Prime Minister Paul Martin.
The inquiry heard conflicting testimony about how Pierre Tremblay, then the chief of staff to then public works minister Alfonso Gagliano, was hired to replace retiring bureaucrat Chuck Guité. Mr. Guité said he rigged the process at Mr. Gagliano's behest; the former minister denied any political interference.
The affidavit, which went unnoticed when it was tabled in May, shows that Mr. Tremblay's hiring was approved by a three-member selection board made up of Mr. Guité, Public Service Commission executive resourcing consultant Michael Carey, and Mario Laguë, a long-time Liberal supporter who became Mr. Martin's first director of communications when he became Prime Minister. The affidavit said Mr. Tremblay was hired “based on the recommendation of the selection board.”
To the Harper government’s credit, it has made the parachuting of political aides into public servant positions — a dubious practice that distinguished Canada from most western democracies, and the results of which we will be living with for many years — much more difficult if not impossible. Which is not to say that an ingenious government cannot find other ways to politicize the public service — one of which is outlined today in this report by The Canadian Press:
Canadian diplomats in Afghanistan were ordered in 2007 to hold back information in their reports to Ottawa about the handling of the prisoners, say defence and foreign affairs sources.
The instruction - issued soon after allegations of torture by Afghan authorities began appearing in public - was aimed at defusing the explosive human-rights controversy, said sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity. …
The instruction was passed over the telephone by senior officials in the Privy Council Office and reinforced in follow-up conferences between Ottawa and Kabul, as well Ottawa and Kandahar, sources said.
Monday, November 16, 2009 07:41 AM
China hugs Harper
Looking at the front page of my morning read, I see a large photo of President Barack Obama under an umbrella as he disembarks Air Force One. Which is pretty much what you’d expect to see when the President of the USA (aka the G1) arrives in Beijing to visit the President of China (aka — for now — as the G2). Except for the fact that on the front page of the China Daily, I spy a photo of our very own Prime Minister Stephen Harper chatting away with President Hu Jintao, while the disembarking President carrying the very same umbrella only rates a smaller photo below the fold.
Before Conservative partisans get carried away with any thoughts that their man is the more popular of the two North American leaders, let’s parse the situation.
The China Daily is an official publication, and the choice of photos reflects the party line. At the APEC meeting, China and Canada ended up as allies on the issue of U.S. trade protectionism. And it’s no secret that the Chinese are interested in Canada’s resources — even the ‘dirty’ oil from Alberta that some Americans don’t want to touch.
China, the world’s largest carbon emitter, has no such qualms. And, though it may be hard to believe, the Chinese have not been swept away by Barack Obama.
For one thing, George W. Bush was very popular in China (as well as in Albania) throughout his tenure. In part, that’s due to his father’s having been ambassador to Beijing and having been pro-China since that time. It’s also due to the fact that China thrived under the presidency of George Bush junior.
Since last November’s election, the Chinese have been wary of Barack Obama. In part, that’s due to the protectionism that they associate with the Democratic Party. It’s also due to the fact that China is now the United States’s banker, and the two countries are to an increasing extent competitors. But mostly it’s because China fears the world-wide popularity of Mr. Obama — a strategic asset that U.S. policy-makers believe can help achieve their international objectives. And a popularity — particularly in the era of the internet and social media — that China’s leaders aren’t eager to have at work as they seek to maintain their authoritarian system of government.
Sunday, November 15, 2009 12:28 PM
APEC meet serves Canada
In the Times Colonist , Andrew Weaver — a member of the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and another of David Suzuki’s guests on Friday’s edition of The Current — says it’s imperative that a strong and binding global gas-emissions treaty be agreed to at Copenhagen next month. And Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is calling for a “massive mobilization on Vancouver Island and across the country” to urge Prime Minister Stephen Harper to live up to the country’s international responsibilities.
Thanks to the APEC meeting, Canadians now understand that a successor treaty to replace the soon-to-die Kyoto protocol will not come out of Copenhagen. They know that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be at the meeting if other world leaders attend, contrary to what the Toronto Star reported yesterday. And, while the Star still seems surprised by the cratering of Copenhagen, and still leans to pinning responsibility on Canada, the New York Times nails it:
“The agreement on Sunday codifies what negotiators had already accepted as all but inevitable: that representatives of the 192 nations in the talks would not resolve the outstanding issues in time. The gulf between rich and poor countries, and even among the wealthiest nations, was just too wide.”
More tangibly for Canada, the APEC meeting sent a strong anti-protectionist signal to U.S. President Barack Obama — who’s been in the pocket of his trade union supporters since coming to office. Here’s how the Washington Post reports it:
“The bluntest criticism, made just a few hours before Obama's arrival in Singapore, came from Mexican President Felipe Calderón who accused the United States of moving "in the opposite sense of free trade." Chinese President Hu Jintao and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, in separate speeches, also assailed protectionism. They didn't finger the U.S. directly, but they pointed in Washington's direction.”
All of which brought a measure of joy to the heart of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who had this to say about his new-found ally, according to Canwest news:
"There are obviously things with China on which we don't agree, but when it comes to economics, China is a strong voice for opening up trade internationally. … That's a strong position of the government of Canada to promote free trade and oppose protectionism."
Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:45 AM
Climate-change chatter
With the Copenhagen conference almost upon us, I doubt that CBC made many friends among Conservatives by choosing David Suzuki to host The Current yesterday, but I doubt that very many of them were listening. Personally, though I didn’t hear much that was new, I found the program very entertaining. Especially when Roger Gibbins — one of our country’s leading political scientists — explained why Canada was co-ordinating its position with the United States, only to be confronted by Suzuki: “But aren’t we a sovereign country?”
At times, as a political scientist myself, I had to feel some sympathy for Gibbins, who, in the mind of CBC producers though not his own, was substituting for Jim Prentice. For some unfathomable reason, Mr. Prentice declined the invitation to appear. The official explanation was that he was speaking in Edmonton, which he was, but it’s hard to understand why he could not have been interviewed by telephone.
Pity, because in his lunchtime speech Prentice gave a rather clear explanation of the thinking behind Canada’s position , as reported by Archie McLean of the Edmonton Journal:
"If the U.S. does not make a substantial effort going forward, there is nothing Canada can do. Our own mitigation efforts will be futile. … If we do more than the U.S., we will suffer economic pain for no real environmental gain — economic pain that could impede our ability to invest in new clean technologies. But if we do less, we will risk facing new border barriers into the American market."
On second thought, perhaps the Environment Minister’s decision to decline the invitation to appear on The Current is entirely fathomable: he suspected that he’d be asked to respond to brainless questions of the guest host along the lines of, “But aren’t we a sovereign country?”
Meanwhile, the Toronto Star is reporting some ‘news’ about Mr. Prentice’s boss: “PM to skip summit on climate change.” As I read the Star report, however, I’d say that Mr. Harper, as most good politicians learn to do, is keeping his options open until he sees which way the (Obama) wind is blowing:
“A high-level source involved in the summit preparations told the Star that Harper has already decided against going to Denmark in December. There was no response Friday to an inquiry of the Prime Minister's Office. U.S. President Barack Obama has said he'll only go if a deal is in hand or if his clout and profile will bring one about.”
Speaking of the President, Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff was in Fredericton yesterday and accused Mr. Harper of doing less on clean energy than Mr. Obama, and, what really must hurt, less than Sarah Palin. Notably, he did not mention that Mr. Obama has failed to set a carbon emissions target, has abandoned Kyoto and is nixing any other agreement containing binding international targets. And another highlight of the Liberal Leader’s visit to New Brunswick was his answer to questions about a local clean energy project - the province’s power deal with Québec:
"Shawn Graham doesn't get asked about Afghanistan, and I don't get asked about a provincial matter ... That's how our system works and it is good that we respect provincial jurisdictions on this matter."
It’s answers like that that may explain the latest Nanos poll showing the Conservative lead continuing and Mr. Harper widening his personal lead over Mr. Ignatieff — as well as the headline in the La Presse report on that poll, “Canadians don't view Ignatieff as a prime minister.”
Friday, November 13, 2009 12:52 PM
Supreme Court reaching too far
I suppose it’s conceivable, had George W. Bush still been in power, that the justices of the Supreme Court would have arrogated to themselves the power to determine how the government conducts Canada's most important foreign policy relationship.
And, looking at the decisions of some lower courts, it’s even conceivable that the nine justices would have done so with Barack Obama in power - even during the week that the Americans are discussing how to bring to justice the man who murdered 12 of their soldiers at Fort Hood.
However, now that the Obama administration has decided to prosecute Omar Khadr, the nine justices of the Supreme Court of Canada should adjourn the hearing that began this morning.
The issue is no longer what the Government of Canada should do in its relations with the United States. The issue now is whether the government of Canada should interfere with the administration of justice in the United States.
It’s virtually inconceivable to believe that our Supreme Court would order a Canadian government to take that step. But that’s a separate issue, and it would require the filing of new arguments by all sides if the nine justices are foolhardy enough even to adjudicate it.
Friday, November 13, 2009 07:04 AM
Coderre to lead Liberals?
Coderre to lead Liberals?
As Daniel Leblanc reports in today’s Globe , Liberals aren’t exactly thrilled by Denis Coderre having re-opened some recent party wounds on Radio-Canada this week.
Among other gems, Michael Ignatieff’s former Québec lieutenant said in the interview:
“I’ve never hidden the fact that I want to lead the Liberal Party, but I’ve always been loyal to the leader. But life teaches you to be patient.”
In today’s editorial cartoon in La Presse, Serge Chapleau draws M. Coderre 41 years from today still dreaming about leading the Liberal party, declaring ”Life teaches us to be patient.”
Thursday, November 12, 2009 08:54 PM
Denis Coderre’s back!
Denis Coderre chose yesterday — a couple of days after the Liberals were thrashed in two Québec by-elections — to make his return to the political stage.
For me, the highlight of the interview by Radio-Canada’s Christiane Charette was his reaction to La Presse caricaturist Serge Chapleau’s statement the day before that he draws the former Québec lieutenant as an “imbecile.” Also notable was M. Coderre’s acknowledgement that last year’s coalition “putsch” — in the words of the interviewer — had been a mistake, as Canadians outside Québec had not given up on the Conservatives and were troubled by the Bloc’s role.
On more current events, M. Coderre did not seem at all apologetic about his resignation as Michael Ignatieff’s Québec lieutenant, according to a report in La Presse:
“I sent a clear message about the process and three weeks later Mr. Ignatieff proceeded to sort out his office. That’s the reality. … It wasn’t my doing alone, but it’s clear that Mr. Donolo’s arrival means that I was right. My gesture was Draconian, but it was an opportunity for Mr. Ignatieff and I think he’s taken it.”
As to the future, here’s what M. Coderre had to say:
“I’ve never hidden the fact that I want to lead the Liberal Party, but I’ve always been loyal to the leader. But life teaches you to be patient.”
With Jack Layton’s candidate garnering 20 per cent of the vote in Hochelaga, patience is not a luxury that Michael Ignatieff can afford.
Spector Vision Contributors
Norman Spector
Norman Spector, a former chief of staff to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, is also a former academic, federal and provincial deputy minister, ambassador and newspaper publisher. He's been writing in The Globe and Mail since 1995 and in Le Devoir since 2003. In 2004, Norman began providing a daily review of the Canadian and international press on his website Norman's Spectator. His book, Chronicle of a War Foretold: How Mideast Peace Became America's Fight, was published by Douglas and McIntyre in 2003. The following year, he contributed an afterword to William Kaplan's A Secret Trial, published by McGill-Queen's University Press.