(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
And so it begins. Reports are coming out today that two Liberal MP’s are ready to vote against the Harper-Ignatieff budget when it comes to a vote. Both MP’s are from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a province whose Premier is Danny Williams, who has been very vocal about the budget. Recall that immediately after the budget was announced, Danny Williams took to the airwaves and called on Ignatieff to defeat it. Looks like at least two of the six Liberal MP’s from Newfoundland and Labrador are heeding his call, even if their Leader Ignatieff isn’t.
And why shouldn’t those MP’s in Newfoundland and Labrador listen to Williams? Certainly Williams’ A-B-C (“Anybody But Conservative”) campaign during the last Federal election contributed to the success of the Liberals (and NDP) in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Aside from being one of the most anti-Harper public figures in the country, Williams is very concerned that the budget shorts his province about $1.5 billion dollars in equalization payments, as per the Atlantic Accord. Quebec Premier Jean Charest has also been grumbling about his province being short-changed as well. The difference is, in Quebec, there is a regional party on the national stage which always speaks out for the interests of that province, and Gilles Duceppe has been very vocal in his opposition to the budget already. Newfoundland and Labrador don’t have such a party. But it is interesting to wonder if they might in the future.
Danny Williams has already been laying this groundwork. A fiscal conservative who largely believes in social equity, Williams has been at odds with Harper over Harper’s vision of small national government, particularly one which pays little or no attention to smaller players like Newfoundland and Labrador. With the help of the A-B-C campaign, voters in Newfoundland and Labrador returned results during the last Federal election which ran counter to national results, returning zero Conservatives to parliament.
Now, with Liberal MP’s threatening to split ranks from a Liberal Party which has already started consolidating power in it’s Leader at the expense of the rank and file, can it be long before a Newfoundland and Labrador Party starts to take shape in that Province? Such a party would likely reflect Williams’ own mentality of fiscal conservatism.
Think its far fetched? No way. There has always been a strong sense among many Newfoundlanders that Canada has really bungled the deal it made to bring Newfoundland into confederation. Although the collapse of the cod fishery is now old news, it is a glaring example of how Canadian mismanagement of a Newfoundland resource so critical to that Province’s well being (not to mention pride and heritage) has led to discontent with the national government. For long, such discontent boiled below the surface, bubbling up only occasionally. But with Danny Williams now on the scene, such displays of discontent are become more the rule than the exception. As Newfoundland and Labrador begins to explore its new self-esteem on the national stage, bouyed by increased oil revenues, it is finding its own voice. And it is finding that voice to be one which is often counter to the mainstream political parties in Canada. And I unfortunately have to include our own Party in that equation, for although Williams financial point of view might be a good fit with our Party, his environmental record leaves a lot to be desired.
So, what could happen if we saw the rise of a new Newfoundland and Labrador Party on the national stage to advocate for the interests of that Province (whether within confederation or, like the Bloc, outside of it, remains to be seen)? Certainly such a party would continue to fracture the make-up of parliament, as it would likely be successful right away at putting MP’s in the House. Potentially, this could lead to a situation where the other political parties might have to work together even more, likely on a case by case basis, to further their own political interests. That likely means a greater chance that more formal coalitions might develop.
If we Greens are thrown into such a parliamentary mix as well, by electing our own MP’s, the outcome would likely be more minority governments, more opportunities for coalitions of interest to develop, and a greater chance at finally reforming our electoral system. So, in this brief analysis, although the rise of a Newfoundland and Labrador Party doesn’t appear to help the Green Party, there may be some helpful impacts down the road.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any immediate opportunities for the Green Party in Newfoundland and Labrador as a direct result of this budgetary mess. But I have to wonder, if Liberal MP’s in Newfoundland and Labrador are ultimately expelled from the Liberal caucus for voting against Ignatieff’s direction, how deep ultimately is their commitment to Stephane Dion’s platform on which they ran and were elected? As it seems unlikely that Ignatieff’s Liberals, or any other Party currently in parliament will be campaigning on the basis of an Income Tax shift to carbon revenue in the next election, might there be an opening for a Green conversion? And I don’t know enough about the personalities involved to make such an assessment. But I hope others start looking into it.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Harper About To Miss Green Opportunity
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca; cross-posted to www.greenpartysudbury.blogspot.com)
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government is about to unveil its much awaited budget to address the stated goal of providing stimulation to our economy in these increasingly troubled times.
If what we have been hearing about the budget over these past few days through leaks to the media holds true, the budget will miss a historic opportunity to start addressing the many challenges we Canadians face. Most importantly, today's budget needs to begin the process of creating a truly sustainable Canadian economy. Unfortunately, it seems Harper and the Conservatives are lacking in vision.
In these difficult times, international organizations such as the IMF and APEC have recommended an increase to public spending roughly equal to two per cent of a nation's Gross Domestic Product. Such spending, however, needs to be strategically targeted to ensure that the results we achieve prove to be beneficial to the costs incurred. Investment in green municipal infrastructure through sharing GST revenues directly with municipalities will permit shovel-ready green projects to move forward. Projects that promote healthy lifestyles and physical fitness will create jobs in our communities, as well as benefit our families in the long term.
Investments in manufacturing and the auto sector that capitalize on a shift to a low-carbon economy will also produce results good for Canada. Investing in energy production from renewable energy sources will begin the process of shifting from our old brown economy towards a more sustainable model.
Cutting revenue sources such as taxes, if not offset by new revenue sources, will decrease opportunities for public investment and hamper our ability to begin paying off the deficits we will be accumulating. If income taxes are to be cut, new revenue sources need to be explored. Since it makes economic sense to derive revenue from activities which are ultimately harmful to ourselves and our communities, such as taxing cigarettes, it seems sensible that we look first for these opportunities. A good way of freeing up needed revenue would be to end corporate welfare by eliminating the massive subsidies our government makes to the fossil fuel sector, which total approximately $1.4 billion a year. Putting charges on carbon emissions would also assist with shifting revenues away from income taxes.
I sincerely hope the Conservative government will attempt to face these challenges head on by offering targeted investment in green infrastructure and cutting taxes for the least well off in our communities, along with the caveat that new green revenue sources are put in place to make up the difference.
While I hope for these outcomes, I don't believe that Harper will have the vision necessary to begin moving Canada in this direction. We will all find out soon.
If we see tax cuts in the budget without new revenues from green sources, and calls for investment in brown infrastructure, we'll know that Harper and Conservatives truly don't understand the needs of Canadians.
-Published as the Letter of the Day in the Sudbury Star (a division of Sun Media), January 27 2009.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government is about to unveil its much awaited budget to address the stated goal of providing stimulation to our economy in these increasingly troubled times.
If what we have been hearing about the budget over these past few days through leaks to the media holds true, the budget will miss a historic opportunity to start addressing the many challenges we Canadians face. Most importantly, today's budget needs to begin the process of creating a truly sustainable Canadian economy. Unfortunately, it seems Harper and the Conservatives are lacking in vision.
In these difficult times, international organizations such as the IMF and APEC have recommended an increase to public spending roughly equal to two per cent of a nation's Gross Domestic Product. Such spending, however, needs to be strategically targeted to ensure that the results we achieve prove to be beneficial to the costs incurred. Investment in green municipal infrastructure through sharing GST revenues directly with municipalities will permit shovel-ready green projects to move forward. Projects that promote healthy lifestyles and physical fitness will create jobs in our communities, as well as benefit our families in the long term.
Investments in manufacturing and the auto sector that capitalize on a shift to a low-carbon economy will also produce results good for Canada. Investing in energy production from renewable energy sources will begin the process of shifting from our old brown economy towards a more sustainable model.
Cutting revenue sources such as taxes, if not offset by new revenue sources, will decrease opportunities for public investment and hamper our ability to begin paying off the deficits we will be accumulating. If income taxes are to be cut, new revenue sources need to be explored. Since it makes economic sense to derive revenue from activities which are ultimately harmful to ourselves and our communities, such as taxing cigarettes, it seems sensible that we look first for these opportunities. A good way of freeing up needed revenue would be to end corporate welfare by eliminating the massive subsidies our government makes to the fossil fuel sector, which total approximately $1.4 billion a year. Putting charges on carbon emissions would also assist with shifting revenues away from income taxes.
I sincerely hope the Conservative government will attempt to face these challenges head on by offering targeted investment in green infrastructure and cutting taxes for the least well off in our communities, along with the caveat that new green revenue sources are put in place to make up the difference.
While I hope for these outcomes, I don't believe that Harper will have the vision necessary to begin moving Canada in this direction. We will all find out soon.
If we see tax cuts in the budget without new revenues from green sources, and calls for investment in brown infrastructure, we'll know that Harper and Conservatives truly don't understand the needs of Canadians.
-Published as the Letter of the Day in the Sudbury Star (a division of Sun Media), January 27 2009.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Good News! Globe & Mail Editorialist Margaret Wente Shares With Us All That Global Warming Has Been Proven To Be ON HOLD
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
Wow. Some "good and unexpected" news from the Globe and Mail today. That Margaret Wente, boy, she's some cutting edge, ain't she? I'm glad that she's here to share the good news with the rest of us.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM...
Stuff like this really really irritates the hell out of me. So much of the good work of public education just kinda goes down the drain when someone like this is given a pulpit to preach from.
Time to flood the Globe with some emails providing some real facts on climate change in place of this nonsense?
Wow. Some "good and unexpected" news from the Globe and Mail today. That Margaret Wente, boy, she's some cutting edge, ain't she? I'm glad that she's here to share the good news with the rest of us.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM...
Stuff like this really really irritates the hell out of me. So much of the good work of public education just kinda goes down the drain when someone like this is given a pulpit to preach from.
Time to flood the Globe with some emails providing some real facts on climate change in place of this nonsense?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Looking Into My Crystal Ball for 2009
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
You know, I’ve always kind of wanted to be a journalist...all those wonderful travel opportunities to exciting locales around the world. The free buffet lunches. Mostly, though, because journalists always get to gaze into their crystal balls this time of year and prognosticate. I always envied those journalists for being allowed to do so, and to share their visions with an unsuspecting, yet rapturous public.
Well, this is my first year of blogging, and what the heck, is there any reason why I can’t do the same? And share it with you, oh unsuspecting blog-readers? Nope. No reason at all. So, here is my first attempt at predicting the future (well, first written attempt anyway...I’m sure my friends and family are bored silly with my annual musings, especially over this past Christmas).
Here’s what I’m expecting in 2009:
1. More War.
OK, that was probably an easy one to call. But let me explain a bit more. I think that many will soon discover that Barack Obama isn’t the President of Peace many out there thought he would be. He’s been talking about, for quite some time now, the need to send more troops to Afghanistan, and widening that conflict to include areas of Pakistan where the Pakistani government has effectively lost control. The increase of US troops in Afghanistan will lead to more violence in Pakistan. Coupled with a weak government, a growing threat to Kashmir by India, and an increasingly out of control security apparatus, Pakistan could implode.
Oh, and all of those troops coming home to America from Iraq? Don’t look for the total troop withdrawal Obama had been promising. There will remain a strong U.S. presence in Iraq at the end of 2009.
Also watch out for an Israeli air assault on Iran, taking out nuclear reactors.
2. Another General Election in Canada
But not until the fall of 2009. Ignatieff will kill talks of a coalition after Harper introduces a budget with significant economic stimuli for many sectors. The NDP will howl, but at the end of the day, the Liberals will support the budget, likely by absenting enough of themselves from the vote that the budget gets passed. This will give Ignatieff the time he needs to brand himself to Canadians, likely as a consultative strong-man who knows what the economy really needs.
A fall election will have the lowest voter turn-out in Canadian history, with the Liberals gaining seats at the expense of the Bloc and the NDP, but ultimately an extremely minorly reduced Conservative minority government led by Stephen Harper will be the result. The Green Party will not elect a single MP.
3. The Green Party will not elect a single MP.
Oh, I predicted that one already, right? Well, even if there is no General Election, there may be a by-election or two. I know I’m hedging my bets here. But either way, I don’t see us electing an MP at this time. Why? It’s the economy, stupid. And frankly, our Party is not taken seriously as a potential saviour of the economy. Voters (those who actually cast their ballots anyway) will not be willing to take a risk on a party known for a putting a single issue above all others. It’s not our time (which is incredibly unfortunate).
I’m particularly concerned about this in the context of a General Election. Our Leader will not be invited to the televised debate, and there will be only a little public outcry as a result. We will again run a full slate of candidates, including some excellent ones with higher profiles who we will recruit over the next several months. But the economy will kill us. Few will want to hear our message in the face of the economic disaster sweeping the world. Even if we’re the only Party to offer viable solutions.
This situation will lead to great strife within our Party, which should be a growing concern, but which likely will not start to have a huge impact until after the next election.
4. Establishment of a North American Cap and Trade System
To be seen to be doing something, Barack Obama and Stephen Harper will begin discussions on a North American Cap and Trade program, modelled on that being used by Pacific Northwest states, albeit in a watered-down form. It will not come into effect until 2012, and there will be all sorts of exemptions, particularly for the struggling oil and gas industry and for the auto sector. The mining and forestry sectors will take the biggest hits, because their lobbyists aren’t as effective.
Ultimately, greenhouses gases will continue to rise; the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. Taxes will continue to increase, except at the Federal level of government, which, ironically, will be the level spending the most money.
OK, none of these are exactly earth-shattering predictions. But they’re what I’ve got today. Oh, wait. You want a happy prediction? Something not so doom-and-gloom?
The best I can do: The Vancouver Canucks win the Stanley Cup. There you go.
You know, I’ve always kind of wanted to be a journalist...all those wonderful travel opportunities to exciting locales around the world. The free buffet lunches. Mostly, though, because journalists always get to gaze into their crystal balls this time of year and prognosticate. I always envied those journalists for being allowed to do so, and to share their visions with an unsuspecting, yet rapturous public.
Well, this is my first year of blogging, and what the heck, is there any reason why I can’t do the same? And share it with you, oh unsuspecting blog-readers? Nope. No reason at all. So, here is my first attempt at predicting the future (well, first written attempt anyway...I’m sure my friends and family are bored silly with my annual musings, especially over this past Christmas).
Here’s what I’m expecting in 2009:
1. More War.
OK, that was probably an easy one to call. But let me explain a bit more. I think that many will soon discover that Barack Obama isn’t the President of Peace many out there thought he would be. He’s been talking about, for quite some time now, the need to send more troops to Afghanistan, and widening that conflict to include areas of Pakistan where the Pakistani government has effectively lost control. The increase of US troops in Afghanistan will lead to more violence in Pakistan. Coupled with a weak government, a growing threat to Kashmir by India, and an increasingly out of control security apparatus, Pakistan could implode.
Oh, and all of those troops coming home to America from Iraq? Don’t look for the total troop withdrawal Obama had been promising. There will remain a strong U.S. presence in Iraq at the end of 2009.
Also watch out for an Israeli air assault on Iran, taking out nuclear reactors.
2. Another General Election in Canada
But not until the fall of 2009. Ignatieff will kill talks of a coalition after Harper introduces a budget with significant economic stimuli for many sectors. The NDP will howl, but at the end of the day, the Liberals will support the budget, likely by absenting enough of themselves from the vote that the budget gets passed. This will give Ignatieff the time he needs to brand himself to Canadians, likely as a consultative strong-man who knows what the economy really needs.
A fall election will have the lowest voter turn-out in Canadian history, with the Liberals gaining seats at the expense of the Bloc and the NDP, but ultimately an extremely minorly reduced Conservative minority government led by Stephen Harper will be the result. The Green Party will not elect a single MP.
3. The Green Party will not elect a single MP.
Oh, I predicted that one already, right? Well, even if there is no General Election, there may be a by-election or two. I know I’m hedging my bets here. But either way, I don’t see us electing an MP at this time. Why? It’s the economy, stupid. And frankly, our Party is not taken seriously as a potential saviour of the economy. Voters (those who actually cast their ballots anyway) will not be willing to take a risk on a party known for a putting a single issue above all others. It’s not our time (which is incredibly unfortunate).
I’m particularly concerned about this in the context of a General Election. Our Leader will not be invited to the televised debate, and there will be only a little public outcry as a result. We will again run a full slate of candidates, including some excellent ones with higher profiles who we will recruit over the next several months. But the economy will kill us. Few will want to hear our message in the face of the economic disaster sweeping the world. Even if we’re the only Party to offer viable solutions.
This situation will lead to great strife within our Party, which should be a growing concern, but which likely will not start to have a huge impact until after the next election.
4. Establishment of a North American Cap and Trade System
To be seen to be doing something, Barack Obama and Stephen Harper will begin discussions on a North American Cap and Trade program, modelled on that being used by Pacific Northwest states, albeit in a watered-down form. It will not come into effect until 2012, and there will be all sorts of exemptions, particularly for the struggling oil and gas industry and for the auto sector. The mining and forestry sectors will take the biggest hits, because their lobbyists aren’t as effective.
Ultimately, greenhouses gases will continue to rise; the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. Taxes will continue to increase, except at the Federal level of government, which, ironically, will be the level spending the most money.
OK, none of these are exactly earth-shattering predictions. But they’re what I’ve got today. Oh, wait. You want a happy prediction? Something not so doom-and-gloom?
The best I can do: The Vancouver Canucks win the Stanley Cup. There you go.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
The Green Party and the Coalition: Are We Becoming a "One Issue" Party?
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
I just recently read the blogpost from Attila Nagy, who ran for our Party in Scarborough Rouge River in the recent election. I don’t know Mr. Nagy, and I think this may have been the first time that I had read his blog, but I believe that Attila raises some good points. I thought of maybe writing a quick response post to his blog, but instead I’ve decided to make a new post in my own blog, because I am feeling a growing sense of unease about a number of things, and would like to expand on what Attila has communicated.
With regards to our “decision” to support the Coalition, I ask everyone to contemplate what might have happened if the Green Party took the “high road” here and decided to come out in support of neither the Conservatives or the Coalition, but instead in support of the people of Canada, their jobs, and democracy in general. What if we had moralized and urged our elected officials to find a way to work together for a change, for the good of our nation, and point out at the same time that Greens stand for something bigger than partisan politics, because we’ve got real issues to tackle and would very much like to get on with tackling them. I ask you to think about those outcomes, and wonder whether we might have missed an opportunity here.
As a Canadian, I personally would support any government which did not include Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party. Given the current alternatives, the Coalition seems to be the much more palatable of the two. That’s important to me personally, and I believe that a Coalition government would be for the good of Canada.
But as the CEO of an EDA, I really have to question why the Party has positioned itself as we have done. I’m not sure what we gain out of “supporting” this Coalition, given that we have no sitting members in parliament. I believe that we really should have thought this through a little bit more before rushing to embrace the Coalition (which I just heard being referred to as “the New Libs on the Bloc”). Unlike the other Parties, because we have not been directly involved in the situation, we actually had time to sit back and consider our options. I’m not sure that this happened.
Instead, we were almost stepping over ourselves to get our Leader in front of the camera and tell Canadians where the Green Party stands on this issue. And frankly, it was embarrassing to hear discussion about having Elizabeth May appointed to the Senate. I don’t think that Canadians really wanted to hear about that, nor did it add to the debate.
We like to think of ourselves as “grassroots”. We could have had a little bit more canvassing of opinion before our declaration of support. Careful consideration might have led to a different outcome. All of this need not have been framed as a choice between only two alternatives - Harper and the Coalition - and instead a third way, a better way, a Green way may have been found and acted upon.
We may have lost an opportunity here to take a different approach. So, where then, does the proverbial buck stop?
I have been growing increasingly concerned regarding the direction in which the Party has been going. I was personally dismayed by events which played themselves out during the final days of the election when our Leader urged Canadians to not vote for us. Yes, her message was mangled by the media, but confusion of her message to the media should have been expected, given the media's track record presenting nuanced discourse. And now we, as a Party, have come out in favour of a Coalition in which we won’t have any say, and which will also likely take Canada in a direction which is not in keeping with the policies of our Party. Policies which, I might add, have been given the benefit of careful consideration by grassroots members. For one example I offer up that Stephane Dion has already nixed the idea that the Coalition would be pursuing a Carbon Tax. While certainly the discussion of a cap and trade system is much better than Harper’s do-nothing approach, it still won’t get the country to where it needs to be.
I believe that we had a golden opportunity to stake out our position, finding a third alternative to present to the Canadian public in an election which is sure to come sooner rather than later, whether the Coalition takes over from Harper or not. Instead, we have chosen to remain the Party which is beginning to appear to be a true one-issue Party; that issue being to promote at all costs the need to remove Stephen Harper as Prime Minister.
I’m not sure this is what I signed up for. I know others are beginning to feel the same way.
I just recently read the blogpost from Attila Nagy, who ran for our Party in Scarborough Rouge River in the recent election. I don’t know Mr. Nagy, and I think this may have been the first time that I had read his blog, but I believe that Attila raises some good points. I thought of maybe writing a quick response post to his blog, but instead I’ve decided to make a new post in my own blog, because I am feeling a growing sense of unease about a number of things, and would like to expand on what Attila has communicated.
With regards to our “decision” to support the Coalition, I ask everyone to contemplate what might have happened if the Green Party took the “high road” here and decided to come out in support of neither the Conservatives or the Coalition, but instead in support of the people of Canada, their jobs, and democracy in general. What if we had moralized and urged our elected officials to find a way to work together for a change, for the good of our nation, and point out at the same time that Greens stand for something bigger than partisan politics, because we’ve got real issues to tackle and would very much like to get on with tackling them. I ask you to think about those outcomes, and wonder whether we might have missed an opportunity here.
As a Canadian, I personally would support any government which did not include Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party. Given the current alternatives, the Coalition seems to be the much more palatable of the two. That’s important to me personally, and I believe that a Coalition government would be for the good of Canada.
But as the CEO of an EDA, I really have to question why the Party has positioned itself as we have done. I’m not sure what we gain out of “supporting” this Coalition, given that we have no sitting members in parliament. I believe that we really should have thought this through a little bit more before rushing to embrace the Coalition (which I just heard being referred to as “the New Libs on the Bloc”). Unlike the other Parties, because we have not been directly involved in the situation, we actually had time to sit back and consider our options. I’m not sure that this happened.
Instead, we were almost stepping over ourselves to get our Leader in front of the camera and tell Canadians where the Green Party stands on this issue. And frankly, it was embarrassing to hear discussion about having Elizabeth May appointed to the Senate. I don’t think that Canadians really wanted to hear about that, nor did it add to the debate.
We like to think of ourselves as “grassroots”. We could have had a little bit more canvassing of opinion before our declaration of support. Careful consideration might have led to a different outcome. All of this need not have been framed as a choice between only two alternatives - Harper and the Coalition - and instead a third way, a better way, a Green way may have been found and acted upon.
We may have lost an opportunity here to take a different approach. So, where then, does the proverbial buck stop?
I have been growing increasingly concerned regarding the direction in which the Party has been going. I was personally dismayed by events which played themselves out during the final days of the election when our Leader urged Canadians to not vote for us. Yes, her message was mangled by the media, but confusion of her message to the media should have been expected, given the media's track record presenting nuanced discourse. And now we, as a Party, have come out in favour of a Coalition in which we won’t have any say, and which will also likely take Canada in a direction which is not in keeping with the policies of our Party. Policies which, I might add, have been given the benefit of careful consideration by grassroots members. For one example I offer up that Stephane Dion has already nixed the idea that the Coalition would be pursuing a Carbon Tax. While certainly the discussion of a cap and trade system is much better than Harper’s do-nothing approach, it still won’t get the country to where it needs to be.
I believe that we had a golden opportunity to stake out our position, finding a third alternative to present to the Canadian public in an election which is sure to come sooner rather than later, whether the Coalition takes over from Harper or not. Instead, we have chosen to remain the Party which is beginning to appear to be a true one-issue Party; that issue being to promote at all costs the need to remove Stephen Harper as Prime Minister.
I’m not sure this is what I signed up for. I know others are beginning to feel the same way.
Friday, November 28, 2008
"India's 9/11" and the Need for Vigilance
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca; cross-posted to www.greenpartysudbury.blogspot.com)
After taking some time off from blogging to focus on the recent election and my own wedding planning, I am motivated today to return to my blog by events from world headlines, as I am deeply troubled by what has been going on in India. The loss of life in Mumbai, at the hands of terrorists, is appalling and disturbing, and my sympathies are of course with the citizens of Mumbai and those throughout the world who have been personally affected by these recent, terrible events.
Commentators in the media have already started referring to these events as “India’s 9/11", and indeed, it seems that these terrorist attacks are different from past terrorist actions in Mumbai and throughout India, of which there have tragically been too many already. The number of civilians killed in India by terrorists has been exceeded only by those in Iraq, which is quite troubling, as India is the world’s largest democratic state.
These recent attacks, though, are different, and may well prove to be a defining event for India and others in the region, just as the attacks in New York and Washington proved to be a catalyst for action for the U.S. and its allies in wake of 9/11.
First, these attacks were co-ordinated to a degree which emphasizes long-term planning on the part of the terrorists, yet security agencies apparently had little fore-knowledge. Indeed, the head of India’s anti-terrorist squad, Hemant Karkare, was killed in the action. The killing of this high-profile Indian official alone would have made the attack a success, from the point of view of the terrorists.
Second, in the past, most terrorist actions have been the result of dissatisfied groups, operating largely from within India, although speculation has been that many of these groups are financed and supported by external organizations. Pakistan has been identified by Indian officials as the primary country from where terrorists organizations are financed and equipped, and there has been criticism that Pakistan has not done enough to clamp down on these organizations.
Nevertheless, long-time rivals India and Pakistan (which have fought several wars in the past 50 years) appeared to have been headed in a more friendly direction, with talks between the two nuclear-armed nations continuing.
Reports from this latest action in Mumbai, however, have identified a previously unknown terrorist organization, the Deccan Mujahadeen, as the only organization which has come forward at this time to take credit. Further, the media has reported that the Indian Navy has seized a terrorist “mother ship” in the Arabian Sea, the MV Alpha, which allegedly came to Mumbai from Karachi, Pakistan, and likely disgorged the terrorists in speedboats. The speedboats, left in the open by the terrorists where they landed on an Indian beachhead, were traced back to the Alpha. It seems that these terrorists, unlike the primarily home-grown terrorists of previous attacks, may have originated directly from a foreign country immediately prior to the terrorist action.
A third difference has been those who the terrorists have targeted with this action. Other terrorist actions within India have largely been indiscriminate, albeit many have been directed against people of particular religious backgrounds. Although people who profess many religious creeds have been killed in Mumbai, reports are coming in that Americans, Britons and Israelis in particular were targeted by the terrorists. Indeed, the headquarters of a jewish outreach group, the Chabad-Lubavitch, were specifically attacked by the terrorists.
Some media commentators have suggested that the targeted attacks on foreigners has been an attempt by the terrorists to hit India where it hurts, in the economy. Attacks on foreigners may lead to less foreign travel and investment in India, if India is perceived as a dangerous country with which to do business. While I do not doubt that such an outcome could be seen as a victory for terrorism, I have my own doubts that the international community will be persuaded by this latest action to ramp down investment in India’s booming economy.
The reports about the targeting of citizens of particular nationalities (Israeli, British and American) are also troubling. Undoubtedly, citizens from these nations have been identified by terrorists who profess to be Muslims as being more higher-valued targets, given the terrorists particular issues with the actions of the governments of these three nations. That is not surprising. What is surprising is that these particular terrorists, who would have just recently come out of Pakistan, chose to specifically target citizens of these three countries in the attacks in Mumbai. While I understand that citizens of many nations have been killed in the terrorist actions, I can’t ignore that the terrorists chose to target the headquarters of what appears to be a benign jewish organization, nor the reports which have suggested that the terrorists themselves, in speaking with hostages, indicated that they were pre-occupied with the nationalities of their hostages, and had expressed a specific interest in Americans and Britons, while while a citizen of Italy was deemed to be “ok”. This is all very unusual for a terrorist action within India.
For these reasons, this latest attack in Mumbai may yet prove to have more than the average in terms of its political fall out, particularly if Pakistan continues to be implicated in the plot. Even if the Pakistani government escapes direct blame, it may not escape the harsh international condemnation of allowing terrorists to organize within its borders. Back in 2001, a similar condemnation of the Taliban government led to the invasion of Afghanistan.
While I do not expect such an over-reaction to take place in this circumstance, I am concerned that powers within the region may try to seize on this recent terrorist action as a casus belli which justifies their desire to resolve long-standing issues. Currently, the government of Pakistan is weak, wracked by internal political divisions after this year’s election. Also, it has been cast adrift by its major ally, the United States, and has been forced to look elsewhere for economic assistance, and specifically to China. Growing ties between China and Pakistan can only be of concern to India.
India and U.S. have been on the road to resolving a number of longstanding issues, and there appears now to be a happy alignment of their own national issues. The signing of an agreement between the U.S. and India earlier this year has welcomed India into the nuclear community, and has now allowed the U.S. to export nuclear technology to India. The Indian navy has stepped up its presence in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea in the past decade, as India has emerged as a regional power to be reckoned with. And the recent U.S. abandonment of Pakistan has made India feel more secure that the U.S. would remain on-side in disputes between the India and Pakistan, particularly over divided Kashmir.
President-elect Obama has been talking for many months now about the need to focus the “War on Terror” in Afghanistan (which he was dubbed “the good war”), and has proposed a troop surge to fight Taliban and Al Qaeda forces there. Obama has also mused openly about the need to pursue terrorists and Taliban fighters across the Afghan border and into Pakistan. Indeed, there have already been a number of incursions by U.S. forces into Pakistan, including a firefight this past fall between U.S. helicopter-born forces and elements of the Pakistani military, in which a number of Pakistani security forces were killed, along with civilians.
In Kashmir, there has been an increase in violent protests this past year, and India has vowed to crack down on militants in the region. India, too, has been active in Afghanistan.
If the recent terrorist action in Mumbai proves to be India’s 9/11 as the media is already suggesting, the outcomes of this action could easily lead to a broader conflict in the region, between India, the U.S. and NATO on one side, and an increasingly isolated Pakistan on the other. The attacks may be viewed as the impetus to resolve the Kashmiri question in favour of India once and for all, and may be used as part of a U.S. rationale for bringing the Afghan war into Pakistan’s lawless frontier provinces. A weak and divided Pakistani government may find that their choices for action have been limited by these events, and may have to accept an armed U.S. presence on Pakistani soil, if only in a temporary way. It is harder, however, to see how Pakistan would accept any Indian incursion into beyond the line of control into Pakistani Kashmir.
And it is here where my concerns for the well-being of the region, and for the rest of us, have started to incubate in my mind. If this situation plays itself out in a similar fashion to what happened 7 years ago on 9/11, we should all be very concerned for the health and well-being of our world. In this blog, I’ve not mentioned the resource-driven strategic issues which may in part motivate both India and the U.S. to act more in concert in the region (and what sort of reaction such moves might generate from China and Russia), but suffice it to say that a compliant Pakistan would serve those U.S./Indian interests well.
Canada has quite rightly condemned this latest terrorist action. Canadians should now be vigilant, and assist the international community in getting to the bottom of how this terrorist action came about. The international community needs to investigate all leads, and follow-up on those leads. Should those leads point to Pakistan and/or Al Qaeda, Canada should be pragmatic in its approach, and caution India and the U.S. not to act unilaterally, but instead in concert with the world community.
After taking some time off from blogging to focus on the recent election and my own wedding planning, I am motivated today to return to my blog by events from world headlines, as I am deeply troubled by what has been going on in India. The loss of life in Mumbai, at the hands of terrorists, is appalling and disturbing, and my sympathies are of course with the citizens of Mumbai and those throughout the world who have been personally affected by these recent, terrible events.
Commentators in the media have already started referring to these events as “India’s 9/11", and indeed, it seems that these terrorist attacks are different from past terrorist actions in Mumbai and throughout India, of which there have tragically been too many already. The number of civilians killed in India by terrorists has been exceeded only by those in Iraq, which is quite troubling, as India is the world’s largest democratic state.
These recent attacks, though, are different, and may well prove to be a defining event for India and others in the region, just as the attacks in New York and Washington proved to be a catalyst for action for the U.S. and its allies in wake of 9/11.
First, these attacks were co-ordinated to a degree which emphasizes long-term planning on the part of the terrorists, yet security agencies apparently had little fore-knowledge. Indeed, the head of India’s anti-terrorist squad, Hemant Karkare, was killed in the action. The killing of this high-profile Indian official alone would have made the attack a success, from the point of view of the terrorists.
Second, in the past, most terrorist actions have been the result of dissatisfied groups, operating largely from within India, although speculation has been that many of these groups are financed and supported by external organizations. Pakistan has been identified by Indian officials as the primary country from where terrorists organizations are financed and equipped, and there has been criticism that Pakistan has not done enough to clamp down on these organizations.
Nevertheless, long-time rivals India and Pakistan (which have fought several wars in the past 50 years) appeared to have been headed in a more friendly direction, with talks between the two nuclear-armed nations continuing.
Reports from this latest action in Mumbai, however, have identified a previously unknown terrorist organization, the Deccan Mujahadeen, as the only organization which has come forward at this time to take credit. Further, the media has reported that the Indian Navy has seized a terrorist “mother ship” in the Arabian Sea, the MV Alpha, which allegedly came to Mumbai from Karachi, Pakistan, and likely disgorged the terrorists in speedboats. The speedboats, left in the open by the terrorists where they landed on an Indian beachhead, were traced back to the Alpha. It seems that these terrorists, unlike the primarily home-grown terrorists of previous attacks, may have originated directly from a foreign country immediately prior to the terrorist action.
A third difference has been those who the terrorists have targeted with this action. Other terrorist actions within India have largely been indiscriminate, albeit many have been directed against people of particular religious backgrounds. Although people who profess many religious creeds have been killed in Mumbai, reports are coming in that Americans, Britons and Israelis in particular were targeted by the terrorists. Indeed, the headquarters of a jewish outreach group, the Chabad-Lubavitch, were specifically attacked by the terrorists.
Some media commentators have suggested that the targeted attacks on foreigners has been an attempt by the terrorists to hit India where it hurts, in the economy. Attacks on foreigners may lead to less foreign travel and investment in India, if India is perceived as a dangerous country with which to do business. While I do not doubt that such an outcome could be seen as a victory for terrorism, I have my own doubts that the international community will be persuaded by this latest action to ramp down investment in India’s booming economy.
The reports about the targeting of citizens of particular nationalities (Israeli, British and American) are also troubling. Undoubtedly, citizens from these nations have been identified by terrorists who profess to be Muslims as being more higher-valued targets, given the terrorists particular issues with the actions of the governments of these three nations. That is not surprising. What is surprising is that these particular terrorists, who would have just recently come out of Pakistan, chose to specifically target citizens of these three countries in the attacks in Mumbai. While I understand that citizens of many nations have been killed in the terrorist actions, I can’t ignore that the terrorists chose to target the headquarters of what appears to be a benign jewish organization, nor the reports which have suggested that the terrorists themselves, in speaking with hostages, indicated that they were pre-occupied with the nationalities of their hostages, and had expressed a specific interest in Americans and Britons, while while a citizen of Italy was deemed to be “ok”. This is all very unusual for a terrorist action within India.
For these reasons, this latest attack in Mumbai may yet prove to have more than the average in terms of its political fall out, particularly if Pakistan continues to be implicated in the plot. Even if the Pakistani government escapes direct blame, it may not escape the harsh international condemnation of allowing terrorists to organize within its borders. Back in 2001, a similar condemnation of the Taliban government led to the invasion of Afghanistan.
While I do not expect such an over-reaction to take place in this circumstance, I am concerned that powers within the region may try to seize on this recent terrorist action as a casus belli which justifies their desire to resolve long-standing issues. Currently, the government of Pakistan is weak, wracked by internal political divisions after this year’s election. Also, it has been cast adrift by its major ally, the United States, and has been forced to look elsewhere for economic assistance, and specifically to China. Growing ties between China and Pakistan can only be of concern to India.
India and U.S. have been on the road to resolving a number of longstanding issues, and there appears now to be a happy alignment of their own national issues. The signing of an agreement between the U.S. and India earlier this year has welcomed India into the nuclear community, and has now allowed the U.S. to export nuclear technology to India. The Indian navy has stepped up its presence in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea in the past decade, as India has emerged as a regional power to be reckoned with. And the recent U.S. abandonment of Pakistan has made India feel more secure that the U.S. would remain on-side in disputes between the India and Pakistan, particularly over divided Kashmir.
President-elect Obama has been talking for many months now about the need to focus the “War on Terror” in Afghanistan (which he was dubbed “the good war”), and has proposed a troop surge to fight Taliban and Al Qaeda forces there. Obama has also mused openly about the need to pursue terrorists and Taliban fighters across the Afghan border and into Pakistan. Indeed, there have already been a number of incursions by U.S. forces into Pakistan, including a firefight this past fall between U.S. helicopter-born forces and elements of the Pakistani military, in which a number of Pakistani security forces were killed, along with civilians.
In Kashmir, there has been an increase in violent protests this past year, and India has vowed to crack down on militants in the region. India, too, has been active in Afghanistan.
If the recent terrorist action in Mumbai proves to be India’s 9/11 as the media is already suggesting, the outcomes of this action could easily lead to a broader conflict in the region, between India, the U.S. and NATO on one side, and an increasingly isolated Pakistan on the other. The attacks may be viewed as the impetus to resolve the Kashmiri question in favour of India once and for all, and may be used as part of a U.S. rationale for bringing the Afghan war into Pakistan’s lawless frontier provinces. A weak and divided Pakistani government may find that their choices for action have been limited by these events, and may have to accept an armed U.S. presence on Pakistani soil, if only in a temporary way. It is harder, however, to see how Pakistan would accept any Indian incursion into beyond the line of control into Pakistani Kashmir.
And it is here where my concerns for the well-being of the region, and for the rest of us, have started to incubate in my mind. If this situation plays itself out in a similar fashion to what happened 7 years ago on 9/11, we should all be very concerned for the health and well-being of our world. In this blog, I’ve not mentioned the resource-driven strategic issues which may in part motivate both India and the U.S. to act more in concert in the region (and what sort of reaction such moves might generate from China and Russia), but suffice it to say that a compliant Pakistan would serve those U.S./Indian interests well.
Canada has quite rightly condemned this latest terrorist action. Canadians should now be vigilant, and assist the international community in getting to the bottom of how this terrorist action came about. The international community needs to investigate all leads, and follow-up on those leads. Should those leads point to Pakistan and/or Al Qaeda, Canada should be pragmatic in its approach, and caution India and the U.S. not to act unilaterally, but instead in concert with the world community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)