Tangents - Part 3

Toronto Star - Monday, July 26, 2010

Ottawa - Canada today signed a treaty of non-aggression with the United States. This was announced by Canadian Prime Minister Edward Broadbent at 10 am Eastern Time, finally ending a week of wild rumours across the Internet. The Prime Minister expressed his continued opposition to US policies, but also stressed the long history of amity between the Canadian and American peoples. He stated that the treaty was intended to reduce tensions between the close neighbours, and he expressed a hope that world conflicts might be settled through diplomacy.

Because of the rumours trickling out over the past week, critics had a long time to prepare, so once the announcement was official, the reactions came swift and hard, both from the left and the right here at home, and from countries around the world. The New Socialist Party was strongly critical, accusing the PM of "caving" to "US Imperialism". The Progressive Conservative Party was also critical, and argued that the treaty essentially made Canada neutral, and that we should be instead be rebuilding our relationship with the US, implying we should, in fact, return to an allied position.

US President Edmund Brown made his own announcement one hour later, at 11 am Eastern Time. He stated that he respected Canada's position in the world, and that despite some disagreements, he also hoped the new treaty would lead to less friction and a resumption in trade between the countries, and hopefully to greater cooperation and more common ground in the future. His statement was short, and he took no questions, but cameras showed many protestors outside the White House carrying anti-Canadian signs. The Speaker of the House, Ron Paul, didn't directly address the content of the agreement, but stated that he viewed Canadians as friends and denounced US foreign policy as being responsible for current tensions.

The US interest in the pact was made clear with the reference to trade. The Resource Embargo is clearly hitting them hard, and while Canada is not formally involved in the embargo, many Canadian firms have either halted or limited exports to the US under public pressure. Many companies still involved in substantial US trade have been targeted by protests and boycotts, and some radical groups have detonated bombs that have caused significant damage to facilities. While the bombers have repeatedly communicated their desire to avoid loss of life, many remember the incident last year in which a janitor was killed in the bombing of the headquarters of the controversial Canadian lumber firm, Northern Forestry.

The reaction from the Soviet Union was uncharacteristically muted. General Secretary Petrova made a brief statement where she stated that she had hoped that Canada would take a more "internationalist" position, but that she also understood that Canada was in a "delicate" position, and the Soviet Union would respect the Canadian decision. The Canadian Prime Minister visited Moscow recently, after the German Reunification celebrations, and many analysts have suggested that Canadian and Soviet officials likely discussed the matter ahead of time in an attempt to avoid any potential misunderstandings.

The pact essentially says that neither the US or Canada will take aggressive action against the other, though both countries retain the right to self-defence and both may make any preparations towards that end, insofar as such efforts cannot be construed as provocative. Despite the Internet rumours, the pact, at least in those parts that have been publicly revealed, makes no mention of Canada's nuclear weapons program, which was officially acknowledged 9 years ago. This was apparently confirmed by the Canadian PM, who, when asked, simply said that those issues were unrelated to the agreement announced today. The PM also refused to comment when asked if the agreement would mean an end to nuclear testing in the Canadian arctic.

Tangents - Part 2

Toronto Star - Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Montreal - Premier Andrea Merkel today gave a speech at the UN, celebrating the 10th anniversary of German Reunification. Merkel deposed Honecker in 1985, after what she called a "brutal" 14-year rule. At the time, she promised widespread reforms and a return to building what she referred to as "real socialism". Although she was opposed by many established bureaucrats and party officials, she received widespread support from youth, including party members, as well as older citizens who felt their values and beliefs had been betrayed in the years following the Second World War.

A coup was attempted in 1986, and another in 1988, the latter of which resulted in dozens of civilian casualties. This led to a widespread crackdown and a major reform of the Stasi secret police. Subsequent investigations revealed that some former senior Stasi officers had been former Nazis. A small number of active officers were also exposed as Nazis. Merkel shared this information with the UN, and notified Israeli intelligence. The information was also shared with West Germany, which conducted its own investigations, and discovered an even greater number of BND (West German intelligence) officers with Nazi pasts.

All the information on the former Nazis was fully documented, their assets were repatriated, and extradition was granted to the UN, with Israeli cooperation, for war crimes trials. East Germany requested that the UN hold the trials in Nuremberg, West Germany. West Germany reciprocated by suggesting they be held in Dresden instead. After the Dresden Trials, 23 Nazis were executed, and 49 were sentenced to life in prison.

Premier Merkel's forthrightness and commitment to justice was widely admired around the world, and especially in West Germany, and East Germany gained a new respect in the international community. Both Germanys began a process of rapprochement and cooperation. This led a decrease in travel restrictions between the countries, and many family reunions. This was followed, of course, by the mutual decision to tear down the Berlin Wall in 1994 (and the re-legalization of the Communist Party in West Germany), and also led to an agreement to share a common currency in 1997. Although the ideological divide still existed, there were already tentative discussions about unification.

Though it seems obvious today, when the US invaded Yugoslavia, no one at the time could have predicted the consequences. While the Communist Party in West Germany had gained some support, they still had only a few seats. The big change was when the SPD leadership split, primarily because of the war, and the left-wing of the party took over. Of course, they still didn't share much in common with the newly reconstituted Communist Party, but they did agree on reunification. Everyone agreed that a referendum was the only democratic way to decide the issue. What no one could have predicted was that Premier Merkel would offer to resign her position and participate in a full pan-Germanic election, in the event of a positive referendum result.

The other West German parties were initially opposed, of course, and insisted on stringent election procedures and UN monitoring, all of which East Germany agreed to. Many pundits now argue that the conditions were set so high in a deliberate attempt to prevent the referendum. In other words, they never thought Merkel would agree. When she did, they had no fallback position they could retreat to. Whatever the case, the referendum was set, and preparations had to be made for the first pan-Germanic election in over 50 years.

So it led to a situation in September 1999, where the West German people had to vote on whether or not to unify, knowing that the form of their government had yet to be decided. It was close, but not that close. In 1995, Quebec voted on whether to secede from Canada, and the yes vote lost by only a fraction of a percent. West Germany, instead, returned a solid 53 percent in favour of reunification. And this is what led to one of the greatest New Year's Eve parties of all time.

The election was never supposed to take place on New Year's Eve, of course. Originally, in fact, it was supposed to take place on Friday the 3rd, although this was already revised before the date was publicly announced. There were security issues. There were concerns about vote-rigging, bribery, and even violence. The US pushed the UN hard to add many additional conditions. The East Germans didn't like it, but they agreed. More UN monitors were sent in than had ever been used before, causing even more problems. Despite all the delays, the vote was still supposed to happen before Christmas, leaving plenty of time for reflection and adjustment.

Then the CIA was caught planting a bomb, and attempting to disguise the attack as an East German operation. Although the attack was stopped, and no one was hurt, the public reaction was explosive, and several people were injured in demonstrations. So, the vote had to be delayed again. But 1999 was a magic number, for everyone. Whatever the vote, the people wanted to start the new millennium with conviction, not uncertainly. So, the election was finally scheduled for Friday the 31st, the last day of the 20th century. The turnout was massive, the lines were long, the security tight, but everything went smoothly. It's almost as though people already knew the outcome. The streets were almost festive, people were happy.

In the end, choosing a name was almost harder than the election. No one wanted DDR, not even the East Germans, they just hadn't gotten around to changing it yet. "People's Republic" wasn't very popular either, especially with many in the West. After many proposals and a long back-and-forth, the politicians finally agreed on something simple, to the point, that everyone could accept as their own: Germany.

And so today, many people consider January 1, 2000, to be the date of German Reunification, even though it took over six months, until July 14th, before it because official. And, although Premier Merkel has technically been in power for 25 years, she prefers to say it has only been 10, since it is only for 10 years that she has represented the whole of the German people.

Tangents - Part 1

Toronto Star - Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Stalingrad - The General Secretary arrived today in Stalingrad, returning from a historic ceremony in the People's Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. In addition to delivering the Soviet Union's final payment of reparations, the General Secretary signed a formal document apologizing for Soviet aggression against Afghanistan.

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, after orchestrating several coups, and then occupied the country for 10 years until it withdrew its troops in early 1989. Shortly after the withdrawal Gorbachev resigned, reportedly under severe pressure, and in a rare divided vote Ilyena Ivanovna Petrova was narrowly elected General Secretary by the Politburo. The new General Secretary quickly shocked the world by declaring the invasion to have been an "unjust act of imperialism", and committed the Soviet Union to paying reparations in the amount of roughly $50 billion (US), to be paid over 20 years. The final payment was made yesterday, along with the document signing.

World leaders generally reacted positively to the Soviet document. Most congratulated the Soviet Union for openly acknowledging past crimes and completing reparations. The US State Department said the document was "appropriate" but also argued that without US support of Afghan "freedom fighters", the Soviet Union may not have been forced to withdraw, and would likely not be apologizing today.

At a press conference earlier today, I asked General Secretary Petrova to respond to the US statement.

Star: "General Secretary, the US State Department has responded positively to your government's declaration, but they have also argued that if you'd won the war, things might be much different today. How do you respond?"

Petrova: "Undoubtedly without US action to arm and support insurgents, my government's efforts might have been more ... efficient. But socialism is not something that can be imposed. United States was wrong to intervene in Afghanistan, as were we. We have paid reparations for 20 years, and have now formally apologized. You might ask American government if they plan to offer apology as well."

US Intervention: Success or Failure?

The US frequently intervenes in foreign countries. This can the take form of supporting one group or leader over another, providing financial aid to one faction, imposing sanctions, sponsoring or actually engaging in a coup, engaging in covert action, spreading propaganda, or actually invading and occupying a country. We should be able, therefore, to look at the history of US foreign intervention and determine whether this has been largely a success or a failure.

Note that for the purposes of this article, I will generally be defining success or failure in terms of the United States own goals and objectives. Success does not necessarily mean the outcome was good or moral, only that the outcome corresponded to US interests. It should also be made clear that just because the US publicly states that a given goal is their aim, we should not assume that is their true aim, we need to look at the broader context. The purpose here is to determine whether US foreign intervention has been productive, from their own point of view.

Gandhi and Non-Violence

Mohandas Gandhi is often hailed as a hero who achieved independence for his country through the use of purely non-violent resistance. He is also famous around the world for his philosophy of non-violence. Unfortunately there are a couple problems with this picture of Gandhi. First, India's independence was not achieved through non-violence alone, despite the common myth. Second, Gandhi's positions on non-violence require complete submission to evil. They would have led to the loss of World War II, a greater genocide of the Jewish people, and many other terrible events. Gandhi was certainly a noble man, with noble goals and many powerful ideas, but is important to understand his true role in history so that we do not learn false lessons. After all, we can only learn from history if we have accurate historical facts.

Guantanamo Bay

The Guantanamo Bay prison is frequently in the news. We often hear about controversy surrounding the prison, the issue of prisoner rights, and speculation on when the prison might finally be closed. One thing rarely discussed, however, is why the US has a naval base in Cuba, and when the Americans plan to leave the country. This is, after all, the only US base in the world located in a country with which the US has no diplomatic relations.

During the nineteenth century, the young United States began a period of expansionism. This included expansion to the west as the "frontier" was pushed back further and further as native peoples were wiped out or ethnically cleansed and their land seized. But the US was also interested in maintaining sole control over the Western hemisphere to the exclusion of European powers. This was formalized in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. This stated that the US would view any attempts by Europeans to colonize land as an act of aggression, but also that the US would agree to not interfere in European affairs.

Haiti's Long Tragedy

The island of Hispaniola, which today contains the two states of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, had the misfortune to be "discovered" by Christopher Columbus in 1492. The native Taíno peoples called the island by various names, including Ayiti, Bohio, and Kiskeya. The vast majority of the natives would be wiped out in the following years, succumbing to disease, murder, and slavery.

During the 17th century, the Spanish withdrew to the east of the island in order to defend their capital of Santo Domingo, and the French established colonies and took over control of the western part of the island, which they called Saint-Domingue. This is why today, the official language of the Dominican Republic is Spanish and the official languages of Haiti are French and Haitian Creole (a french derivative).