What's Wrong With The Afghanistan Motion

I watched the Liberal Party clip of Stephane Dion presenting and explaining his motion on the future of "the mission" in Afghanistan.

The motion was obviously an exercise in political posturing and nothing more. It demands that the Canadian government "address" Afghanistan's opium problem. Address as in what exactly? How is a force that controls just a small portion of just a single province in a lawless and corrupt narco-state supposed to address a national problem of the scope of Afghanistan's opium industry?

Dion notionally insists that NATO honour the non-existant "rotation" principle of sending in a force of soldiers to relieve Canada's soldiers so they can get on with training and security. Yet he leaves more than ample wiggle room in the proposal as to render it virtually meaningless so long as the Tory demand for another thousand troops is met.

If we're going to continue as America's Foreign Legion until February, 2011, then we'll need NATO to furnish Canada with its own, mini-Foreign Legion to handle the fighting in Kandahar until we leave, is that it? So, we're going to remain in control of Kandahar province and other countries are going to send their soldiers there to serve under us as our battle group? Say what?

Then there's the sleight-of-hand insistence on a "firm end date" of February, 2011. Dion wants Harper to write a letter to NATO saying this time we mean it, we're really leaving, seriously folks - no, seriously, this isn't a joke, we're going in February, 2011. Stop laughing. We mean it, there's nothing to laugh about. We're serious. Really, this time we're serious.

If we're going to have a "firm end date" there's only one way to get it. We need to negotiate a binding agreement, with NATO and with the US, under which both acknowledge we're out in February, 2011 and with an express American guarantee that, if NATO doesn't come up with a replacement force by February, 2010, the US will begin assembling and training an American force to be in place no later than February, 2011 to relieve Canada's forces. We need that deal BEFORE we approve any extension because you can't get it afterward.

We're in the mess we're in now because we extended to 2009 without that very agreement from NATO and the US. We didn't bind them to our deal and they weren't about to jump in to find replacements for the Canadian mission as the deadline approached.

NATO and the US are not our faithful friends in this. They knew what was needed for Canadian forces to "rotate" out in 2009 and they did absolutely nothing - nothing - to facilitate that end. We were stupid to believe they would do otherwise. Yet here we are, once again, extending a mission to another deadline without the firm commitment of the two key players, NATO and the US, a glaring omission that virtually assures we will be stuck in the same situation in 2010 that we're in today. If anything it'll be worse for us because NATO will be scrambling to find someone to fill in for the departing Dutch contingent.

Another precondition of the Liberal motion is described as, "development of sound judicial and correctional systems." Given that another NATO member, I believe Italy, has assumed responsibility for development of an Afghan judicial system it's unclear how this condition can have any relevance to the mission extension except as meaningless window dressing.

This is followed by demands for, "addressing freshwater shortages and addressing the drug economy." Just what does Mr. Dion have in mind that Canada should do to address Afghanistan's freshwater shortages from our dangerous little perch in Kandahar?

These conditions are plainly demands on Kabul or NATO or both so it's difficult to conceive what purpose there is in incorporating them into the extension. It is neither coincidence nor oversight that completely absent in these supposed demands is any discussion of just what Canada is to do if development of sound judicial and correctional systems isn't achieved or if the opium economy isn't addressed (whatever that may mean) or if the freshwater shortages aren't addressed (ditto). Do we leave? Do we throw a tantrum? Do we speak harshly to Hamid Karzai?

These policies and conditions don't even pretend to be more than meaningless, irrelevant drivel. We seem to have arrived at an era where we use proud words to mask the absence of ideas rather than to convey courageous solutions; to construct the appearance of decisiveness as a facade to hide angry confusion and indecisiveness; to stand fact and logic completely on their heads to create the bare illusion of leadership where none exists. It's bad enough that Stephen Harper insists on modelling himself after the flawed image of his American Idol. Why does the Liberal leader feel obliged to follow suit?

The Canadian people don't support the mission and their knowledge barely scratches the surface of the true situation on the ground in Afghanistan. The more they know, the less they're bound to like it. NATO isn't committed to winning this, neither is the United States, so what conceivable reason can there be to extend the mission beyond 2010 when the Dutch are leaving in their neighbouring province?

Stand on principle, draw a line, if necessary fight an election on 2010. But that's not going to happen, is it.

Water, Water Everywhere - Just Not Here, or Here, or There Either

One of the main themes on this site, other than Afghanistan, has been the environment and, especially, the looming freshwater/groundwater crisis that is spreading rapidly around the world. As Maude Barlow points out in the following excerpts from her interview in Alternet, it's a razor-sharp, double-edged sword that is both a result and a cause of global warming:

"By farming in deserts and taking up water from aquifers or watersheds. Or by urbanizing -- massive urbanization causes the hydrologic cycle to not function correctly because rain needs to fall back on green stuff -- vegetation and grass -- so that the process can repeat itself. Or we are sending huge amounts of water from large watersheds to megacities and some of them are 10 to 20 million people, and if those cities are on the ocean, some of that water gets dumped into the ocean. It is not returned to the cycle.

"We are massively polluting surface water, so that the water may be there, but we can't use it. And we are also mining groundwater faster than it can be replenished by nature, which means we are not allowing the cycle to renew itself. The Ogallala aquifer is one example of massive overpumping. There are bore wells in the Lake Michigan shore that go as deep into the ground as Chicago skyscrapers go into the ground and they are sucking groundwater that should be feeding the lake so hard that they are pulling up lake water now, and they are reversing the flow of water in Lake Michigan for the first time.

"We are interrupting the natural cycle. And another thing we are doing is something called virtual water trade. That is where you send water out of the watershed in the form of products or agriculture. You've used the water to produce something and then you export it, and about 20 percent of water used in the world is exported out of watershed in this way, because so much of our economy is about export. In the U.S. you are sending about one-third of your water out of watersheds -- it is not sustainable.

"This is not a cyclical drought. We are actually creating hot stains, as I and some scientists call them, around the world. These are parts of the world that are running out of water and will be, or are, in crisis. Which means that millions more people will be without water. I argue that this is one of the causes of global warming. We usually hear water being a result of climate change, and it is, particularly with the melting of the glaciers. But our abuse, mismanagement and treatment of water is actually one of the causes, and we have not placed that analysis at the center of our thinking about climate change and environmental destruction, and until we do, we are only addressing half the question."

Barlow was being interviewed in connection with the release of her new book, "Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water." You can read the entire interview here:

http://www.alternet.org/water/76819/?page=2

Stephane Dion Folds on Afghanistan

The great debate seems to be whether Liberal leader Stephane Dion "compromised" or "capitulated" in reaching an accord with Stephen Harper on extending the mission in Afghanistan.

Jason Cherniak opines that it was neither, instead a "marriage of communications convenience between the Liberals and the Conservatives, neither of whom want an election with Afghanistan as the prominent issue."

I think it's much more than communications convenience, whatever you take that to mean. Here are excerpts from Dion's principled Afghanistan policy speech in February, 2007:

"...by May, a mere three months after Canada’s combat force went into Kandahar, the government knew that we were facing a significant and violent insurgency, well beyond anything NATO had experienced in the past or had planned for. And before too long we saw that the Canadian effort in Kandahar had shifted from the original over-riding objective of reconstruction to fighting a violent insurgency.

Faced with that new reality, what should the Canadian government have done? It should have taken the time to determine whether and how our mission could still achieve the goals we had set out, in such a rapidly deteriorating security environment.

Instead, what did Prime Minister Harper do? He extended the mission by 2 years. And he did so without having obtained commitments from our allies to help us cope with the changed situation. He made no prior effort to obtain assurances from the government of Pakistan to secure their border with Afghanistan, across which the insurgents move with impunity. And he got no assurances from our NATO allies to replace Canada at the end of our mission. In other words, he made a rash decision on a critical issue.

In addition, the Prime Minister misled Members of Parliament to get them to support this extension. He promised MPs that this mission would not hinder Canada’s ability to undertake peace-support missions elsewhere, such as in Darfur or Haiti. But within a few weeks of the vote in Parliament, his defence minister made it clear that Canada no longer had any such troop capacity. General Hillier, the Chief of Defence Staff, has more recently confirmed this. With this mission extension, the Prime Minister has thrown away Canada’s flexibility to respond to other international peace and security priorities.

In the face of changed circumstances on the ground, this government and this Prime Minister steamrolled Parliament without facts, information or realistic debate. They told Canadians this mission represented continuity of an existing mission, yet the security context deteriorated so much that shortly after this decision the government went as far as to send tanks to Kandahar.

I will say unequivocally that a Liberal government led by me will not extend Canada’s combat mission in Kandahar beyond February 2009. That means Canada must inform NATO today how firm this deadline is and that it must find a replacement nation for us. The Harper government has not done this. To the contrary, military documents have come to light that show that the Harper government is planning for the Canadian Forces to stay in Kandahar until 2011. Our allies have surely taken note of this. As long as other NATO countries believe our commitment is open-ended, they will never prepare for our departure."

So, it's "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Harper, with the requisite endorsement of the opposition parties, extended the mission by two years to 2009, without having obtained assistance from NATO partners or assurances from Pakistan or assurances from NATO allies to replace us when the term ends in 2009.

Okay, now Dion has agreed to an extension to 2011 without having obtained assistance from NATO partners or assurances from Pakistan or assurances that we'll be replaced when the term ends in 2011. "As long as other NATO countries believe our commitment is open-ended, they will never prepare for our departure." Well said Stephane so why does this no longer trouble you?

"I will say unequivocally that a Liberal government led by me will not extend Canada's combat mission in Kandahar beyond February, 2009." Of course the decision hasn't fallen to a Liberal government led by Dion but to a Liberal opposition led by Dion. I guess that must let him off the hook.

Ocean Freighter Emissions Triple Estimate

The Guardian has managed to get its ink-stained hands on a leaked copy of a UN study that finds CO2 emissions from shipping may be treble what was previously believed.

The report suggests that shipping contributes 1.12 bn tonnes of CO2 annually, far more than the 650 m tonnes attributed to the aviation industry. The revised figures leave shipping as contributing 4.5% of global GHG emissions.

If unchecked, shipping emissions are predicted to increase as much as 30% by 2020.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/13/climatechange.pollution

Scalia's Jack Bauer Moment

US Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia says some physical interrogation could be used on a suspect in the event of an imminent threat, such as a bomb set to go off.

Scalia told BBC, “You can’t come in smugly and with great self-satisfaction and say, ‘Oh, it’s torture, and therefore it’s no good.”

Justice Scalia said it would be “extraordinary” to assume that the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment applied to “so-called” torture in the face of imminent threat. He said that the Constitution “is referring to punishment for crime.”

But “is it really so easy,” he said, “to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the Constitution?”

“It would be absurd to say you couldn’t do that,” the justice said. “And once you acknowledge that, we’re into a different game. How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be?”

This is just the sort of thinking we ought to expect from Cheney hunting partner and fellow moral reprobate Scalia. It glibly masks what's not said.

For example, who on this planet believes that security services wouldn't freely smack someone in the face if they believed that necessary to discover the whereabouts of a hidden bomb? But this isn't about a smack across the face, is it? Scalia tacitly admits that when he concedes the issue becomes one of justification of torture - cause and extent. How close does the threat have to be and how severe can the infliction of pain be?

What Scalia deliberately omits is the real issue - how legitimate does the threat have to be? His sanction would absolve a torturer who could claim an "honest but mistaken" belief that something dire was imminent. What if it's nothing more than a perceived threat, something based on ginned-up "intelligence" of the sort that Bush manipulated to justify invading Iraq? With enough wiggle room, anything is excusable, there is no excess.

No, I'm sorry. Torture needs to remain illegal because claiming that it all depends on circumstances admits just too many vagaries into the calculation of right and wrong, so many as to render judgment virtually impossible and meaningless.

Scalia then went on to show the BBC audience what a knuckle-dragger he is by wading into the death penalty issue:

“If you took a public opinion poll, if all of Europe had representative democracies that really worked, most of Europe would probably have the death penalty today,” he said. Excuse me, Tony, "representative democracies that really worked?" You mean like your own, the United States of America? This man is positively delusional.

Stop the Presses - Uno is Best in Show

The handsome hound pictured above is "Uno" and this mutt broke a nearly 70-year shut out by taking Best in Show last night at America's top canine contest, the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show in New York.

It's been widely thought that the Beagle was much too pedestrian to take top honours over the frilly (i.e. "pimped") creatures that usually dominate these competitions.

The New York Times reports that Uno entered the ring, "to thunderous applause, as if Willis Reed had walked into the arena one last time," to trounce the other six finalists.

Uno, by the way, bears a striking resemblance to my own Beagle, Mikey.

Muddling Along Meaninglessly

It looks as though Harper and Dion have found a compromise on Afghanistan - stay until 2011 and then out.

Excuse me while I wretch.

What these clowns have compromised on is a big bag of nothingness. It is less than a joke, darker than a farce. Where to begin?

Let's start with the absence of the most important players at the negotiating table - NATO and Washington. Harper and Dion can agree to anything they like. Without the agreement and binding committment of NATO and Washington, it's as meaningless as the previous agreement to extend "the mission" to 2009.

When we said "out in 2009" what did that comedian de Hoop Scheffer do in recognition of our offer to extend our nation's committment, to sustain further losses? He did nothing. The Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization took it as a freebie and gave absolutely nothing in return. He didn't begin pestering other NATO members to have replacements ready to take over in early 2009. Neither did Washington which, after all, intends to maintain permanent garrison forces in Iraq and needs NATO soldiers to make that possible by carrying America's baggage in Afghanistan.

Surprise, surprise - here we are long after the deadline has passed to muster a replacement force and Brussels and Washington have done SFA. So, now we'll draw another line in the sand, this one two years further down the road, 2011, and - naturally - we'll neither demand nor obtain any committment from the US or NATO.

So let's flash forward to 2010. That's the year the Dutch say they're pulling out of Afghanistan. What are the chances Scheffer is going to be bothered with Canada's deadline in 2010? We've shown him what Canada's deadlines mean - nothing. Ignore us and we'll bitch and then roll over.

Better yet, what does 2011 mean to the Taliban? Two years is essentially meaningless to a nationalist insurgency. "We have all the watches, they have all the time," remember?

And what of Afghanistan's New Government, Karzai's Kabul Klan? There'll be elections next year and word has it that the Americans want to get rid of the hapless Karzai in favour of a more reliable water boy. But power in Afghanistan has already passed into the hands of the warlords who have ensured the countryside is safely contained in fundamentalist feudalism. If we don't have even a small fraction of the soldiers needed to combat the Taliban, just how are we to wrest power from the iron fists of the warlords and drug barons?

And what of Pakistan? Now that the Pakistani army has been "militarily defeated" in the autonomous Tribal Lands and the Northwest Frontier to the point where it has again negotiated a ceasefire with al-Qaeda and the Taliban forces, what will staying until 2011 do to ease that threat? Is it A: Nothing, B: Nothing or C: Nothing. Full points if you chose "Nothing."

So, if staying until 2011 isn't likely to result in any significant change on the ground in Afghanistan, then why stay at all? Of course if you're interested in fighting a political war at home and indifferent to the military war abroad, you can duck that question entirely.

By the way, who do you think will be leading the Liberals and the Conservative parties when 2010 rolls around and we find ourselves still stuck firmly in Afghanistan and playing politics over whether to stay or leave?

Bloomberg Pans Corn Ethanol

New York's billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has slammed a new US energy law that he says will raise global food prices and spread death through starvation.

"People literally will starve to death in parts of the world, it always happens when food prices go up," Bloomberg told reporters after addressing a U.N. General Assembly debate on climate change.

The new U.S. law, which came into force late last year, increased fivefold the required amount of blending of biofuels like corn ethanol -- creating higher demand for the grain that will push up corn prices.

America subsidizes its own corn ethanol production while levying duties on imported ethanol from sugar cane. Bloomberg also attacked the efficiency of corn ethanol production which uses about the same amount of energy to produce, transport and distribute as it yields.

Bloomberg didn't pull any punches in his assessment of the dangers of global warming. "Terrorists kill people, weapons of mass destruction have the potential to kill enormous numbers of people, global warming has the potential to kill everybody."

Putin Vows Russia Will Win New Arms Race

Just weeks before he steps down as Russia's president, Vladimir Putin has delivered a defiant warning to the West - Russia intends to win the arms race launched by George w. Bush. From The Independent:

"It's clear that a new arms race is unfolding in the world," said Mr Putin, one that Russia did not start. And he vowed that Russia would respond to the threats by developing newer and more modern weapons that were as good as if not better than those possessed by Western countries. "We are being forced into retaliating ... Russia has and always will have the answers to these challenges," he said.

Russian bomber patrols have recently been made over the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans and approached close to the borders of Nato airspace. Two Russian Tupolev-95 aircraft strayed south from their routine patrol pattern off the Norwegian coast and headed towards Scotland last September.

In the most recent incident, two long-range "Blackjack" bombers flew to the Bay of Biscay off France and Spain to test-launch missiles. The Russians have also hinted they want to re-establish a naval presence in the Mediterranean, probably using Syrian ports. The strategy is designed to heighten the visibility of Russia's military might but the sabre-rattling has alarmed Western countries and fuelled talk of a new Cold War.

Mr Putin went into overdrive yesterday, painting Russia as the victim of Western aggression and expansion, and promised a Russian response. He said Western countries spent far more on defence than Russia, and also returned to a theme he has raised many times before – that of Nato enlargement towards Russian borders. "We pulled out of bases in Cuba and Vietnam," he said. "And what did we get? New American bases in Bulgaria and Romania."

Symbolically ominous changes are under way too: Russia recently announced that vast parades in Red Square to showcase the nation's military strength are to be revived this year for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Mr Putin also accused unnamed foreign countries of cynically trying to gain unfair access to Russia's natural resources. "Many conflicts, foreign policy acts and diplomatic démarches smell of oil and gas," he said. "This is the context in which we understand the growing interest towards Russia." He said the sovereignty of certain countries had been completely destroyed under slogans of freedom and democracy."

Russia isn't the only country that has been furiously rearming since George w. Bush came to power in 2000. China is developing a large and modern air force and will soon field a true, blue water navy. India is also pursuing large scale naval expansion.

NATO expansion, the hyper-aggressive Bush Doctrine and US Space Doctrine, America's programme to deploy a new generation of nuclear weapons including "first strike" warheads were bound to trigger this sort of response, particularly among the emerging economic superpowers. There have even been rumours recently that China may be negotiating to establish a major naval base in Iran.

Will the White House be Decided by Stay At Home Voters?

Both the Demutantes and the Repuglicans are facing internal turmoil in their presidential nomination campaigns.

The "movement conservatives" of the Rove/Cheney camp detest their frontrunner, John McCain, while on the Democratic side, relations between the Clinton and Obama camps are positively toxic.

Of the two sides, the Republican dissent appears the least debilitating. McCain may never be right wing enough for his party's base but he can ease their discontent by chosing the right running mate and relying on the endorsements of key Republicans - like the nod he just got from George w. Bush. Also he's got eight months to win over the dissenters.

The Dems seem to be in worse shape. A lot of Hillary supporters say they'll stay home on election day rather than vote for Obama and that seems to be echoed in reverse by many in the Obama camp. Despite their fleeting moments of civility, it appears these candidates are in store for a lot more bloodletting that could continue right up to the convention. That, right now, may be the Republican's best hope for retaining the White House.

The Dems' best hope might be for a Clinton-Obama ticket, something to reconcile both warring camps. Clinton for president, Obama in the wings to succeed her. Unfortunately the Clintons have shown themselves less than helpful to their vice-president in the past. Hillary stepped all over Gore while Bill was president and Bill was probably Gore's greatest drawback in the Gore-Bush runoff.

Could Obama trust Hillary if he joined her ticket? Probably not. However the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket isn't realistic. Hillary would never take second place. She's already been a vice president.

But Hillary may not be able to win without Obama and he may not be able to win without her supporters. Unless someone can find a way to defuse the bitterness and anger between the two candidates' supporters, they might just hand John McCain the presidency.

The Lobbyist Who Never Was

Brian Mulroney was in a spot. He needed to explain why he received cash-stuffed envelopes from Karlheinz Schreiber, money about which he kept very quiet until Schreiber's bank records became public sending Mulroney racing off to Revenue Canada to file a belated, "voluntary disclosure."

The answer? He was retained by Schreiber to lobby foreign governments on behalf of Schreiber's German customers, outfits like Thyssen. Now you would have expected that Thyssen would be delighted to have a former Canadian prime minister working to flog its products to new customers and it might have - if it had ever known about it. But, it seems, this was a secret Mulroney kept from everyone, even the companies he was supposedly earning hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote. From the Globe & Mail:

"In interviews with The Globe and Mail and CBC, a former Thyssen executive and a spokeswoman for the company, which has changed names after merging with another company in 1999, said they are not aware of the lobbying that the former prime minister says he did for Thyssen in China, Russia and France between 1993 and 1994.

"He never worked for Thyssen," Winfried Haastert, a former Thyssen executive, said in a phone interview.

"I cannot imagine how he could expect to sell something like this to Russia or even to China. It's absolute nonsense. Maybe he tried to support us. I don't know."

Anja Gerber, a spokeswoman for ThyssenKrupp Technologies, also said that Mr. Mulroney had "no official business with Thyssen."

So that means that there's just one person who can substantiate Mulroney's bizarre claims - Karlheinz Schreiber - who vociferously disputes Mulroney's story.

We're Winning in Kandahar

How's this for logic? If we abandon territory, they won't fight us for that territory and therefore we can claim victory because there's less fighting. I guess that means if we packed up all our soldiers and flew them back to Canada we could claim total victory. From the Globe & Mail:

"Secret military statistics show that Taliban attacks have decreased in Kandahar's core districts in the past year, illustrating the success of Canada's new strategy of pulling back its troops into the heart of the province, a top military commander says.

Insurgent ambushes have fallen in four of Kandahar's 17 districts as the latest rotation of troops has focused on protecting the vital zone around the provincial capital, said Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, although he did not give specific numbers.

"In relation to where we're focused, I think we are winning," he said.

Geographic focus was a key part of the general's assessment. While saying that security has improved in the districts of Panjwai, Zhari, Spin Boldak and Kandahar city, he repeatedly declined to comment about the provincial situation as a whole.

In places just beyond the Canadians' zone of control, the Taliban have established a parallel court system, enforced curfews, and mounted road checkpoints.

But Gen. Gauthier described his troops in a dilemma similar to that faced by a hospital triage nurse, deciding which patients require the most urgent attention: "You have to prioritize," he said."

Trying to secure a territory the size of Kandahar province with a battle group of but 1,000 soldiers was never more than a preposterous fantasy anyway so it makes sense that the Canadian force would retreat and concentrate on holding the most critical assets, the cities. Is that what "winning" looks like? I guess so, if you can define "victory" as going on the defensive.

Taking the Tough Decision on Afghanistan

Our Liberal leader needs to confront reality and make a reality-based decision. Do Canadian troops remain in Kandahar beyond 2009 or do we leave? Those are the two options - the only options - that reality affords us.

Yet that didn't stop Stephane Dion from taking to the national airwaves yesterday going on about a "process" that, in the reality world, doesn't exist:

"It is the rotation process. You will have a country or set of countries that will do the combat after Canada doing three years, and Canada then will be able to focus its efforts elsewhere," Dion told CTV's Question Period yesterday.

"You will have a country or set of countries..." What country or set of countries? Surely if there is such a thing as a "rotation process" there must be countries' soldiers to be rotated in as Canadian soldiers are rotated out. Unless, of course, there is no process and it's merely a fictional device to allow a politician to avoid saying he'd unilaterally yank Canadian soldiers out of their combat role in Kandahar.

I think a solid case can be made for withdrawal if a leader was prepared to show the courage to stand up and argue the point. But to tie the issue to a nonexistant "process" is to reduce that argument to a level of sophistry. And for a man already perceived as weak that can only reinforce those negative perceptions.

Here's an idea. Leaving Kandahar in 2009 is already pretty much impossible. There simply isn't time for NATO to recruit a replacement force and then to have that force trained for the mission by that deadline. However 2010 should still be a viable option. And that's the year the Dutch are leaving, something they've made quite clear.

We should also make it clear that we're not going to depend on NATO finding a non-combat role for our forces somewhere else in Afghanistan. If NATO can find a suitable role for us, fine. If it can't - or won't - fine, we'll accept we're not needed in any other capacity and leave the place entirely.

Since When Does a Prime Minister Lobby for a Lobbyist?

Karlheinz Schreiber may be a sideshow in the financial affairs of Brian Mulroney. It was always thought that Schreiber received the $20-million in Schmiergelder, or grease (bribe) money, paid out by Airbus Industries in the course of the Air Canada deal. Schreiber says that money went, instead, to GCI (Government Consultants International), a lobby firm owned by Mulroney croney, the late Frank Moores.

GCI is gone and Frank Moores is dead so getting to the bottom of this is going to be more difficult than it otherwise might. That said, the records of Air Canada and its board during the Mulroney years do exist and might shed a lot of light on what happened.

Why did Mulroney sack some 15-Air Canada directors and why did he include among the replacements he appointed Frank Moores? Why did Frank Moores hurriedly resign this directorship? Why did Moores repeatedly deny claims that he and GCI acted for Airbus on the sale (although correspondence has emerged plainly showing just that)? Why did Moores run off in lockstep with Mulroney to make his own "voluntary disclosure" to Revenue Canada when Schreiber's Swiss bank records became public?

One thing, however, stands out. It's been reported that Mulroney repeatedly pressured the Air Canada board to pay GCI a $5-million fee of some sort related to the Airbus purchase. Did Mulroney, while prime minister, really lobby for the lobbyist and, if so, why and what did he get out of it? Why would Air Canada pay a fee to GCI if it was acting as lobbyist for Airbus? Did any money pass from Air Canada to GCI or Frank Moores and, if so, how much and for what?

Norman Spector did ponder what the Commons ethics committee might have learned had it held the current enquiry back in 2002 while Moores was still alive. It's too bad he was never asked to expand on that thought.

The Biofuel Myth

We've been sold the line that biofuels hold the promise of great GHG emission cuts. Maybe not. In fact, dirty old fossil fuel that biofuel is supposed to replace may actually be less harmful. From the New York Times:


Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.

Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.

“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”

Guess What? They're Standing Up! So, Aren't We Supposed to be Standing Down?

Great news out of Afghanistan. The Afghan National Army is well ahead of schedule and expects to reach a force level of 80,000 next year. From Reuters:

Afghanistan has accelerated training for army recruits and expects to have a combat-ready force of 80,000 troops by early 2009, well ahead of initial targets, the country's defence minister said on Friday.

Abdul Rahim Wardak told Reuters the effort was part of a strategy to take over the brunt of fighting from NATO troops as soon as possible. But he repeated Afghanistan still needed help to create a viable air force before taking over full leadership.

"It will save lives for our friends and allies," Wardak said in an interview after talks with NATO counterparts in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius.

Wardak said U.S.-backed army training was being stepped up with the aim of turning out 4,000 soldiers a month compared with 2,000 late last year, enabling Afghanistan to surpass an internationally agreed 2006 target of 70,000 troops by end-2010.

"We hope by April, May this year we will achieve that number and we are hopeful we will reach 80,000 by March, April of 2009," Wardak said.

Training of Afghan forces was already ahead of target but Wardak's announcement that the effort would be further accelerated underlined the push to off-load more of the combat burden from the 43,000-strong NATO-led force."

So, there we go, we can leave. It's over. The Afghans are going to have plenty of troops, high-quality US trained soldiers, well more than we estimated. The Afghan army is up in the high fives while we're told the insurgents remain in the low fours. Isn't it time then for the "we'll stand down" promise? This is certainly what we were promised by Rick Hillier and his retired cheerleader, Lewis MacKenzie.

Maybe, though, we haven't been told the truth by Hillier or the government of the day. Maybe while the Afghan army has been standing up, so has the Taliban. Maybe the highly trained Afghan army isn't as capable or reliable as it should be. Who knows? It would be nice if Lardo would trust us enough to keep us informed of what's happening on the ground in Afghanistan but he doesn't and he won't.

Floating Canada Out of NATO?

What's floating around is an idea about getting British, Canadian and Dutch troops fighting in southern Afghanistan out of NATO's ISAF structure and directly under American command as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

From the Washington Post:

"Gen. Dan McNeill, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, described in a wide-ranging interview how he is hamstrung by the combat restraints on some NATO troops, insufficient forces and intelligence capabilities, and a host of other political and military obstacles that undercut effective operations.

"Caveats deny me the ability to plan and prosecute," McNeill said. "I can't amass them to where I might have a decisive point. . . . Obviously I can't move as quickly as I want to," McNeill said.

McNeill said such constraints have led to unofficial proposals that U.S. forces take charge of the mission in southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest and where British, Canadian and Dutch troops now serve -- an idea that he said merits consideration.

"I think it should enter into the dialogue" with NATO, McNeill said."

I think somebody should tell McNeill that we're not about to become America's Foreign Legion so that it can maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

Romney Quits - McCain Wins

Maybe he's tired of watching his bank account dwindle. Maybe he's just seen the writing on the wall. Maybe his friends got to him. Whatever the motivation, it's reported that Mitt Romney is abandoning his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

That pretty much leaves John McCain the anointed choice of the Republican side even as Movement Conservatives boil in their own juices.

"I must now stand aside, for our party and our country," Romney said in remarks prepared for his appearance and released by his campaign.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win," the statement says. "And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

A Civilized Debate

Stephane Dion claims Harper has promised a "civilized debate" on Canada's role in Afghanistan followed by a vote somewhere near the end of March.

A civilized debate. How can you debate anything unless you have clear, convincing facts? When it comes to "the mission," what are the facts?

I think it would be fatal to the debate to allow it to be informed by the Manley report. There is so much solid information that exposes the report's many errors and shortcomings. Why doesn't the Commons committee start gathering its own evidence on the state of today's Afghanistan?

Call the UN's drug czar to testify. Let's get a clear picture of Afghanistan's opium economy and let's have a look at the key players - the Taliban to be sure but also the ties to the Karzai government. Let's get an assessment on Afghanistan's slide into feudal fundamentalism with a central government that exists at the suffrance of a warlord power base. Let's have a look at what's going on across the border in Pakistan - in the Northwest Frontier and the autonomous Tribal Lands and Islamabad itself. Let's receive expert (i.e. non-Manley) evidence on the true state of NATO's hapless, disjointed and counterproductive military efforts, how the Taliban was allowed to become resurgent and whether anything is going to end that threat to Kabul. Let's hear about the core principles of counterinsurgency warfare and how few of them are being met in the type of war we're waging over there.

Once we get this sort of honest, meaningful and accurate information then parliament can hold a civilized debate. Then our debate will be manifest to Brussels and Washington. Then Canadians will have an opportunity to decide what they think we ought to do. If we're going to have an election on this issue, our government owes us that much.

Another Record Year for Afghanistan?

The UN's Office on Drugs and Crime has just released its winter estimates for Afghanistan's opium poppy crop and it looks as though the drug barons/warlords/insurgents/government are in for another bountiful year, perhaps even surpassing last year's record production.

It's not clear just yet whether opium cultivation is as extensive as last year and the UN says the good news is that the rate of increase in production is tapering off. However Afghan farmers are making up for that by huge increases in marijuana production.

The Battle of Kabul, Ottawa

Well it looks like our Furious Leader has found an issue he's prepared to hang an election on - Afghanistan. Word has it he's going to toss out a confidence motion calling for an extension of Canada's Afghan mission beyond 2009.

Sounds to me like Stephane Dion had better pull his thumb out and find a clear position he can explain to the Canadian public, a position they can support. I'm betting that's what Harpo believes Dion can't do and he plans to make the election a referendum on the Liberal leader. The way everything else is going for Lardo this is probably his best bet.

The first thing Dion needs to do is to ensure that his policy is viable. As Hillier has said we can't stay in Kandahar and not fight. It's bandit country and, unless Dion can get the Taliban to go away, they'll take over if we don't fight to defend our turf. Can't be any simpler.

Reconstruction? Sure, just as soon as we establish an adequate level of security. Oops, there we go again, fighting.

No, I think this is a "take it or leave it" question and the Libs are going to have to support the Cons or fall into line with the Dippers. I'm pretty sure that's what Harpo's thinking too.

Maybe it's time to reassess the whole business. Let's not get snowed by the Manley panel report. It's simply not reality based. An extra thousand soldiers and a few helicopters isn't going to secure Kandahar province, not even close. That's a political sop, nothing more, and Manley ought to be ashamed for playing Harper's stooge.

We could begin by asking what "success" in Afghanistan would look like and then contrast that with conditions on the ground to see what needs to be done to get there if that's even possible. What do we want out of this? What's our bottom line?

If our goal is simply to be a dutiful member of NATO, success or failure against the Taliban is irrelevant, the corrupt and chaotic central government is irrelevant, the Afghan security services that alienate the people in the countryside are irrelevant, the looming unrest and threats from the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan are irrelevant. Just by staying there, we succeed. Afghanistan may utterly fail but that doesn't matter.

If the Canadian people want a "goal oriented" approach then our participation in the NATO/ISAF mission becomes less significant and all the irrelevant considerations above suddenly become very meaningful. Suddenly it becomes relevant that we're not winning against the Taliban. It becomes relevant that the central government is corrupt and unviable. It becomes relevant that the Afghan security services are actually undermining our best efforts to build support among the Afghan people for their central government. The descent into violence and destabilizing religious extremism across the border in Pakistan becomes relevant.

So what we need is to engage the voting public on these issues, to make them see the fundamental flaws in the Afghan mission. The Canadian people have been kept in the dark about this little war and that's understandable - the less they know the better it is for Lardo. The same goes for Hillier. Then there's John Manley. Manley has done Harpo an enormous favour, a shield that Stevie can hide behind and a club he can use to bludgeon Dion.

Working around Harpo, Hillier and Manley will be tough. It'll require a clear message and solid communication with the voting public and I'm not sure the Libs can manage either challenge. Their message is muddled and indecisive and, as for a communicator, well it's Stephane Dion.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

100-million tonnes of garbage. Flotsam - floating debris. Spread out over an area twice the size of the United States.

It's all floating off the shores of California and Hawaii and other Pacific Rim nations. Much of it comes in the form of discarded plastic. From AlterNet:

The vast expanse of debris -- in effect the world's largest rubbish dump -- is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting "soup" stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan.

Charles Moore, an American oceanographer who discovered the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" or "trash vortex", believes that about 100 million tons of flotsam are circulating in the region. Marcus Eriksen, a research director of the US-based Algalita Marine Research Foundation, which Mr Moore founded, said yesterday: "The original idea that people had was that it was an island of plastic garbage that you could almost walk on. It is not quite like that. It is almost like a plastic soup. It is endless for an area that is maybe twice the size as continental United States."

Curtis Ebbesmeyer, an oceanographer and leading authority on flotsam, has tracked the build-up of plastics in the seas for more than 15 years and compares the trash vortex to a living entity: "It moves around like a big animal without a leash." When that animal comes close to land, as it does at the Hawaiian archipelago, the results are dramatic. "The garbage patch barfs, and you get a beach covered with this confetti of plastic," he added.

Mr Moore said that because the sea of rubbish is translucent and lies just below the water's surface, it is not detectable in satellite photographs. "You only see it from the bows of ships," he said.

Plastic is believed to constitute 90 per cent of all rubbish floating in the oceans. The UN Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic."

Few realize it but, with the exception of a very small amount that's been incinerated, every bit of plastic that's ever been produced still exists somewhere. Recycling? Globally, we're recycling somewhere between 3 to 5% of total production.

Drive through the back country of Mexico, for example. The sides of the roads are covered in discarded plastic bags. The fences are full of them. Unless you've seen it you can't believe it.

Is the World Facing Son of Bush?

Correct me if I'm wrong. Please, set me straight. I've not been following the US presidential nomination campaigns all that closely but, that said, I haven't noticed one candidate on either side come out and say they would move to restrict the unconstitutionally-seized powers established by George w. Bush.

Governing by fiat, recess appointment, signing statements and outright defiance of the constitution has become so "second nature" with the Bush/Cheney tyranny that many, on both sides of the aisle, urged impeachment for the sake of restoring, unequivocally the constitutional balance of checks and powers. It wasn't so much for the sake of punishing Bush or Cheney as for upholding the constitution by prevailing on the legislative and judicial branches to rein in the executive.

An executive that cannot be removed by confidence vote and forced to defend its actions in front of the electorate surely must be otherwise restrained lest the nation itself turn into a quasi-dictatorship. And yet I haven't seen that this issue has achieved any prominence in the current campaigns.

Am I wrong? Please advise.

National Spot Whitewashes National Spot

If Norman Spector really slammed anything or anyone in his testimony before the Commons ethics committee it was the National Post which he singled out for spiking the Mulroney/Schreiber story at the outset. He suggested that there was a cozy relationship between the Spot and Mulroney who appointed Conrad Black to the Privy Council and who subsequently intervened on behalf of David Milgard, a pet cause of the Aspers. Strangely enough, not a word of this made it into the Spot's reportage of Spector's testimony.

Spector had promised to drop bombshells in his testimony before the committee but his ordinance turned out to be a dud. He mainly expressed concerns in his capacity as a citizen and not very much in the way of hard detail about the dealings of the Schreiber and the former P.M.

One interesting remark from Spector's opening remarks came in a reference to the late Frank Moores, head of the lobby firm GCI, which represented Airbus on the Air Canada deal and which, according to Schreiber, received $20-million in bribe money.

Spector Bombshell

Here are a few opening remarks by Spector: A proper post will follow

Can you imagine a newspaper like the National Post killing a story like this?

Fred Doucet extraordinary access to Mulroney

Imagine if this committee hearing was held in 2001 when Frank Moores was still alive?

Documents a "more prosaic" source of cash. Explains why Mulroney was willing to cater to the rich and powerful - obsessed with how he would get by after leaving office.

I have grave doubts that Mr. Harper wants "airbus answers" in contrast to Mr. Martin's response to the sponsorship scandal?

Harvey Andre?

RCMP botched Airbus investigation.

Story suppressed by remarkably large segment of the media.

Subpoena bank and tax records.

Start pressing government to offer Schreiber a deal to spill the beans.

What Does Spector Know Anyway?

In his many columns written for The Globe & Mail, I always found Norman Spector to be a reliable toady for his old boss, Brian Mulroney. That's why I figured his appearance before the Commons ethics committee to discuss the cash that flowed through 24 Sussex Drive would likely be some sort of mundane whitewash - the "nothing to see here" sort of appearance.

But Brian Mulroney is plainly concerned about what his former minion may have to tell the committee members. About an hour before Spector's scheduled appearance, Mulroney has dumped a mass of documents onto the committee.

"Norman Spector will appear before the ethics committee beginning at 3:30 p.m. EST – an hour after the Mulroney camp launched a pre-emptive strike in the form of documents released by Mr. Mulroney's camp and posted to his media relations site.
The documents include a statement by Marilyn Burk, former assistant to Mr. Spector, concerning the removal of confidential files from the prime minister's office. In it, Ms. Burk claims a secretary was instructed by Mr. Spector in late 1991” to photocopy a file that contained records of household expenses submitted by Mr. Mulroney's wife, Mila.

There are also “various documents relating to the system of expense management at the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) and OLO (Opposition Leader's Office)” and “to payments for 24 Sussex furnishings.”

The hearing is just about to begin so I think I'll take it in on Newsworld. This could just be interesting after all.

Mitt Romney Steps In It

Mitt Romney just stepped in it - and deep. With Republicans going to the polls in Super Tuesday primaries, Romney blurted out a sneer at Bob Dole.

It all began with a letter the former Republican senator wrote to Rush Limbaugh who has been hypercritical of John McCain. Dole told Limbaugh to cut it out saying the Republicans needed to unite behind their party's nominee. From - gasp - FoxNews:

"Romney immediately seized on the letter, saying on FOX News Tuesday morning, “Well, it’s probably the last person I would have wanted to have write a letter for me. … I think there are a lot of folks who tend to think that maybe John McCain’s race is a bit like Bob Dole’s race — that it’s the guy who’s next in line, the inevitable choice. “

McCain shot back, saying in a statement: “Gov. Romney’s attack on Bob Dole is disgraceful, and Governor Romney should apologize. Bob Dole is a war hero who has spent his life in service to this nation and nobody has worked harder to build the Republican Party. Bob Dole deserves the respect of every American and certainly every Republican.”

Once he realized the enormity of his gaffe, Romney began to furiously backpedal. This day of all days. What an idiot.

Khadr's Kangaroo Kourt

Any remaining doubt that the US Government is trying to rig the trial of Omar Khadr evaporated yesterday.

That's when a classified document was mistakenly released to reporters. The document, an eyewitness statement, contradicts the government's position that Khadr had to be responsible for throwing the grenade that exploded, killing a Delta force soldier, because he was the only suspect alive at the time.

Turns out that wasn't quite true. There was a second guy, still lying on his side, moaning, until he was dispatched by a single shot to the head. The witness then spotted Khadr, sitting up but facing away from the soldier. Khadr was then shot twice in the back.

No one saw Khadr throw anything. The government theory was that, since he was the only one alive, he must have thrown the grenade. It seems the US government was quite prepared to run Khadr through a rigged trial, concealing this exculpatory evidence.

I don't have any sympathy for Khadr or his cause but he was a child soldier and the US government is rigging the case against him and - like it or not - he is a Canadian citizen. With this latest revelation, our Furious Leader, if he has a shred of decency in him, ought to be demanding Khadr's immediate release and return to Canada. Who knows what else they've got cooked up to use against him? If there ever was a Kangaroo court, this is it.

Peeking Into Mulroney's Bags of Cash

The Brian Mulroney soap opera resumes today when former aide Norman Spector testifies before the Commons ethics committee. Spector supposedly has information pertaining to piles of cash that were delivered to 24 Sussex Drive while Mulroney was prime minister.

So many questions. Why cash? Did Mulroney hit the stores for bouts of shopping? I guess Mila did. Whose cash was it? Who delivered it and why? How did Mulroney treat the money for tax purposes? How was it recorded and where are those records today? What, if anything, did Mulroney do to get this money? Did Mulroney keep a safe in the basement to handle this cashflow? Where did all this cash go?

After Spector, former justice minister Allan Rock is expected to testify, presumably in regard to Mulroney's defamation lawsuit against the government of Canada. Again, so many questions.

Afghanistan - That Flushing Sound

According to The Guardian, Afghan and NATO forces have managed to kill another bagful of civilians including women and kids. The supposed bad guy? Well, he got away.

A district police chief in Farah province says the troops stormed the house of a suspected Taliban leader Mullah Manan and by the time the final shell casing hit the floor the soldiers had killed nine, incuding two women and two children, but Manan got away.

Troops in the British-controlled Helmand province did better. They killed the suspected Taliban and merely wounded his 8-year old daughter.

Meanwhile the sister paper, The Observer, managed to get unpublished figures from allied military sources showing that insurgent attacks on international and Afghan troops jumped somewhere between 20 and 33% last year.

"Nato sources argue that more troops are needed to fill gaps in the south west in particular but argue that targeting resources on providing more training teams for the nascent Afghan army would do more good than pouring in soldiers. A particular frustration for the US is the restrictions imposed by national governments on the deployment of their troops. Germany, France, Italy and Spain - the latter two countries with troops in western Afghanistan - all agreed last year to send troops to the violent south, but only in extremis. Since the agreement, no troops from those countries have been deployed.

General Carlos Branco, spokesman for Nato forces in Afghanistan, conceded to reporters last month that violence had increased in Afghanistan, but argued that suicide bombs reflected desperation by the Taliban. 'As an insurgency movement, the Taliban movement are a failure,' he said."

Gee, if the Taliban are failing, we must be winning, right? Now ain't that good news? What is that flushing sound anyway?

Harper is Genuinely Afraid - Of Us

Stephen Harper doesn't like the people of Canada. No, really, he doesn't. Just look at how he mocked the Canadian people - you and me - for the sport of his elite American friends in the ultra-secret, uber-right Council for National Policy when he was honoured with an invitation to address them in Montreal a decade ago.


"It may not be true but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians."

"The NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the lives of men. Some people point out that there is a small element of clergy in the NDP. Yes, this is true. But these are clergy who, while very committed to the church, believe that it made a historic error in adopting Christian theology."

"Before the Reform Party really became a force in the late '80s, early '90s, the leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favour of gay rights, officially - officially in favour of abortion on demand. Officially - what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized health care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of this country."

But, jesting or not, Harper's plainly stated contempt of the Canadian people - you and me - has morphed (as it was bound to) into fear now that he heads a minority government that keeps bashing into the wall of his decidedly un-Canadian dogma.

Fear? Of course. The proof lies in the information lock-down imposed by our Furious Leader on departments in the spotlight such as the Department of National Defence and Environment Canada.

Prime minister Lardo is petrified that someone in those departments might inadvertently blurt out - the truth - and make him look bad. Can't be having that because the truth doesn't match the message. The more you know, the less believable Harpo and his policies become.

It's gotten to the point where even the KanWest gang has had its fill of our Furious Leader's antics. From the National Spot:

Robert Marleau, the information commissioner of Canada, says that contrary to Mr. Harper's election pledge to make transparency a hallmark of his administration, a "fog over information" has crept across the government's activities.

Marleau said complaints to the commissioner's office about lack of access to government information have doubled in the past year.

The Access to Information Act seems like the only way for MPs, interest groups, journalists and others to get government information, Mr. Marleau said in an interview.

Donald Savoie, a New Brunswick academic who has documented the trend toward "governing from the centre," says the Mr. Harper team's penchant for below-the-radar policy making is risky.

Mr. Savoie says Canadians should take Mr. Harper's [transparency pledge] with a grain of salt.

"I don't think we'll ever have an open, transparent government as long as we have a minority government," he said. "There is a lack of confidence or insecurity because they don't know where the landmine is going to come from, and when it's going to blow up. So, they try to control it."

Uncle Joe Harper's Political Commisars

"In all dictatorships, targeting the free press begins with political pressure - loud, angry campaigns for the news to be represented in a way that supports the group that seeks dominance." - Naomi Wolf, "The End of America."

Now, relax, I'm not claiming that Harper intends to seize dictatorial power in Canada. I think it's only a matter of time before that chump runs his course and the stain of his administration fades. That said, we do need to be mindful of this guy's autocratic bent. Part of that lies in Harper's manipulation of the Canadian media.

It came out late last year that Harpo had imposed a political filter on the Department of National Defence where requests for interviews or the release of information to the media had to be pre-cleared with senior bureaucrats in the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office. These political commisars were obviously intended to control the message on the Afghanistan controversy. It's a form of media manipulation and it's a technique that Harper has shown he'll use with other controversial issues.

The Vancouver Sun, a full-fledged KanWest paper, says the same tactics are being used by Harpo against Environment Canada.

"Environment Canada's muzzling of its scientists might be shocking, but it's hardly surprising.

The new policy, which apparently went into force in recent weeks, is designed to control the media message and ensure that Environment Minister John Baird faces no "surprises" when he reads or listens to the news.

The policy dictates that researchers refer all media queries to Ottawa. The media office then directs reporters to submit their questions in writing, and then researchers are to send written responses to senior management for approval. If the researcher is cleared to do an interview, he or she is asked to stick to "approved lines," though it's not clear what that enigmatic phrase means.

Needless to say, the new policy has infuriated scientists and sent a chill through Environment Canada. After all, while Gregory Jack, acting director of Environment Canada's ministerial and executive services, insisted "there is no change in the access in terms of scientists being able to talk," it's clear that scientists are being severely hobbled in their ability to speak freely.

This is in stark contrast to Environment Canada's treatment under previous governments, when it was one of the most open and accessible federal departments. That openness and accessibility, however, is seen by Environment Canada's executive committee as a problem that needs to be remedied.

It appears that the Conservatives refuse to recognize any distinction between policy based on science and science itself. Rather than using scientific evidence to inform policy, the Conservatives seem more interested in ensuring that the science conforms to their policy."

Once again we see the true face of Stephen Harper and it's pretty ugly.

Oh Boy, Our Turn!

Big news in Afghanistan. A Canadian general is taking the reins in the south. From the Toronto Star:

"A change in tact and tactics for international coalition efforts in southern Afghanistan is coming with the changing of the guard, according to the Canadian now in control of international military efforts in the region.

Maj.-Gen. Mark Lessard yesterday took over leadership of Regional Command South, the designation given by the International Security Assistance Force to Afghanistan's six southernmost provinces."

And there's the problem. As one commander rotates in to replace the outgoing commander, he brings his war to Afghanistan. So the forces in the south will get to fight Mark Lessard's war this year and then a year from now they'll learn to fight some Dutch or British or American general's vision of what needs to be done in southern Afghanistan.

If it sounds like tactical schizophrenia, it is.

"We blocked in 2007," Lessard said of the last year's activities. "In 2008, we're going on the offensive."

Lessard, who I'm sure bears no resemblance to the commandant of the "Police Academy" movies, is clearly in a shoot'em up mood.

Here's Something Karzai Can Tackle - The Sale of Afghan Kids

Our good friend and faithful ally in Kabul, Hamid Karzai, must be about the most useless president of any country on earth. He can't handle the insurgency that's spreading throughout his country. He can't handle the flourishing opium trade that has left his country strapped to a runaway narco-economy. He can't handle the rampant corruption in his police and security services. He can't prevent torture in his prisons. He can't bring his country's warlords to heel.

He has been able to safeguard his own job and install his friends in high places. He has managed to thwart the UN's efforts to appoint a super-envoy to organize reconstruction and aid efforts lest that somehow diminish Karzai's own standing.

But surely he has time to protect his country's children. The UN is warning of an increasing problem of parents selling children. I'm sure it's just a coincidence but the kids being sold are all girls. Hmm, wonder why that could be.

In three recent cases, the parents all pleaded poverty, claiming they sold their daughters because they couldn't afford to feed them. In fairness, famine is a widespread problem in Afghanistan, particularly this winter. The going rate seems to range anywhere from $20 up to $240 per girl.

It seems Karzai & Company just haven't had time to pass laws prohibiting the sale and trafficking in Afghan kids or even child abuse. The good news is that they've assured the UN they're working on it.

Israeli Clusterbombing Violated International Law

Barely a month after the Israeli military cleared itself of all wrongdoing in the use of clusterbombs against Lebanon during its 2006 war with Hezbollah, the Winograd commission into the war has found just the opposite - that the weapons and the way they were used clearly violated international law.

From the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs:

"The Winograd Committee said it did not find any evidence to prove that soldiers fired cluster bombs at civilian targets or that civilians were injured by the bomblets during the war, but it did say that firing the bombs at built-up areas - even if they were being used by Hezbollah as military posts at the time - "does not comply with the rationale on which the restrictions [in Israeli and international law] on the use of cluster [bombs] is based."

The committee, set up by the Israeli government to investigate the war, found that firing the bombs into residential areas, even if the residents had left, was not an "acceptable widening" of the rules, as civilians would be hurt.

The Winograd Comittee had five members, who were appointed by the cabinet about a month after the war ended, and was headed by retired judge Eliyahu Winograd. The committee’s mandate was to investigate and reach conclusion on the conduct of political leaders as well as the military and defence systems.

In the final report, it said that the cluster bombs were inaccurate and spread out over a wide area; not all the bomblets exploded and continue to cause harm long after they were fired.

About 90 percent of the cluster bombs were fired in the last days of the war, when it was clear a ceasefire would soon be announced. Over four million bomblets were fired during the war, according to the UN."

The UN says unexploded cluster bomblets such as those shown above continue to exact a toll on Lebanese civilians having killed 30 and wounded 200 since the war ended.

The Israeli military still refuses to assist UN workers trying to clear the remaining weapons, finding ten new sites every month.

"All these weapons systems are computerised and grid references are entered before the bombs drop. Not receiving the cluster bomb strike data from the Israelis remains our biggest obstacle to clearance,” Dalya Farran, a spokeswoman for the UN Mine Action Coordination Centre for South Lebanon (MACSL), told IRIN. The UN estimates that Israel rained down around four million bomblets - most US-supplied - onto south Lebanon in the last three days of its 2006 July war with Hezbollah fighters, when a ceasefire had already been agreed.

And this, supposedly, is our ally and friend.

Afghan Senate Backs Down on Kambaksh Execution

International outrage has finally got through the thick skulls of the Afghan senate. Citing "a technical mistake," the Senate withdrew its confirmation of Kambaksh's death sentence for supposed blasphemy consisting of downloading a report on women's rights. From The Independent:

The move follows widespread international protests and appeals to the President, Hamid Karzai, after the case was highlighted by The Independent and more than 38,000 readers signed our petition to secure justice for Mr Kambaksh. In Britain, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband, the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and the shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, backed the campaign, and there have been demonstrations in the Afghan capital, Kabul.

The first ruling by the Senate supporting the death sentence on Mr Kambaksh by a religious court in Mazar-i-Sharif in the north of the country, was proposed by Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, a key ally of President Karzai, and was seen as a severe blow to the 23-year-old journalism student's chances of avoiding execution.

Mr Kambaksh can now petition the court of appeal against both his conviction and sentence, and, afterwards, the supreme court. If he fails there, he can appeal directly to Mr Karzai – who has been inundated with emails about the case – for a pardon. Mr Kambaksh's brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, welcomed the new position adopted by the Senate. He added, however, that he might have difficulties finding lawyers to present the case at the appeal court after warnings from fundamentalist groups against people "allying themselves with the apostate". He said the only realistic chance of his brother being freed might be the personal intervention of Mr Karzai. "

Taxes Can Reform Attitudes

The New York Times reports on a highly successful Irish initiative to do away with the scourge of plastic bags:

"There is something missing from this otherwise typical bustling cityscape. There are taxis and buses. There are hip bars and pollution. Every other person is talking into a cellphone. But there are no plastic shopping bags, the ubiquitous symbol of urban life.

In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.

Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog."

Now I know this is going to send you libertarian folks out there into cardiac arrest but it shows that, like public smoking bans, we can adapt quite easily and, afterward, wonder what all the fuss was about.

Canada Won't Scuttle NATO But America Might

A report in The Times indicates that tempers are flaring among some NATO members in response to angry demands by US defense secretary Robert Gates for them to contribute soldiers to the combat zone of southern Afghanistan.

"An unusually stern letter from Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, to his German counterpart about the role of Germany’s troops in Afghanistan caused anger not just in Berlin but elsewhere in the alliance.

Washington has taken the lead in putting pressure on Nato with a warning that the credibility of the alliance is at stake. But Mr Gates’s latest intervention seems likely to cause more division.

His letter to Franz Josef Jung, the German Defence Minister, went to the heart of the problem that has faced Nato since its mission expanded throughout Afghanistan, and in particular to the southern provinces where the Taleban are concentrated.

German diplomatic sources said the letter from Mr Gates had been harsh, although they would not divulge the contents. Mr Jung replied in similar mode with a “direct and stern” letter to Mr Gates, according to Suddeutsche Zeitung, a German newspaper.

The whole question of burden-sharing in Afghanistan — in particular sharing the burden of combat — is due to come up at Nato’s next summit in Bucharest in April. One Nato diplomat said: “I think Mr Gates’s intervention is more about domestic politics than anything else but sometimes I wonder whether the US realises the negative impact these spats have outside America.”

The Guardian reports that the dispute has gotten so bad that Condoleeza Rice has been dispatched to Europe, "to tackle an escalating row over Nato troop reinforcements for Afghanistan, amid worries that the entire international stabilisation strategy is in danger of failing."

"Conservative MPs are starting to question the wisdom of continuing to support the president [Karzai]. Ministers are braced for another critical report from the Commons international development select committee amid concern that popular support for the war will start to wane, especially as Karzai adopts an increasingly independent view."

NATO is ill-suited to the role in Afghanistan now foisted on it by Washington. It was never intended to be America's Foreign Legion and the grousing of its member states isn't helped at all by the incompetence of the White House and Pentagon leadership. This is a particularly bad time to be asking countries like Germany to make commitments that could serve as obligational precedents when a presidential election looms that could see the United States take a sharply different course in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's A Start

The Netherlands has introduced a new tax on gas guzzlers. Beginning today, buying a Hummer will set you back an additional $28,000 in environmental taxes.

Most high-end, V-8 cars will now cost at least $10,000 more. What remains to be seen is the extent to which this will influence buyers.

"It varies a bit, but if you take the high-end V8 vehicles, it will easily go up by up to 10,000 euros," Mercedes-Benz Netherlands spokesman Hubert Dubbelman said.

But the companies said drivers might continue buying gas guzzlers anyway.

"It is not clear if a customer who is willing to pay 160,000 euros for such a car is affected by the fact that he has to pay 10,000 more," Dubbelman said.

Dion, Make Up Your Mind - Stay or Leave?

I'm not sure where Stephane Dion stands on the question of Canadian participation in the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. It strikes me that he's more intent on finding a place to stand that's not already occupied than in taking a clear, genuinely principled position.

He's allowed himself to get snookered again. Harper's occupying the "stay" corner, Layton has staked out the "leave" corner. It seems that Dion's focus is to define a posture that is somehow betwixt and between - as though that were possible.

So we'll stay in Kandahar but someone else will do the fighting. And NATO is going to adopt rotational deployment so that all those other nations that are lining up to jump in can get their fair share of the combat mission.

The trouble with Dion's position is reality. If you're in Kandahar you're going to fight. Option B doesn't exist. And NATO doesn't have any suitably sized reinforcements available to rotate in. That's the problem Stephane, that's why we're in this 2009 predicament.

Germany's defence minister announced today that his country's forces, like those of Italy, France and Turkey, will be staying in the relatively peaceful north. They're not budging and so any prospect of rotation is unrealistic.

Unfortunately for the Liberal leader, Harper's also got the "stay, but..." option, the Manley option, staked out.

Between them, Harper and Layton have pretty much got the reality options filled. So, Stephane, who are you going to side with?

Don't Tell Him There Is No Santa

John Gomery was instrumental in shoehorning Stephen Harper into power. He even posed for photos shaking Harpo's hand as Lardo stood at the alter of transparency like a true believer.

Oops. Fooled ya, Johnny!

A report in the Toronto Star quotes Gomery, speaking for a position of complete irrelevance, as dissatisfied with today's Harpo.

"I have to tell you, I'm very disappointed," Gomery said from the farm in Havelock, Que., where he now lives in retirement.

He said most of the changes he proposed fell into a "black hole" of indifference or were rejected out of hand.

Gomery's scathing indictment of the previous Liberal government was widely credited with helping the Conservatives come to power in 2006.

Gomery recommended a reversal of a decades-long trend to centralize power in the hands of the prime minister.

It was a goal Harper appeared to share when he was in opposition, says Gomery. But since taking power "there's more concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office than we've ever had before, which is quite remarkable in a minority government, but he's pulled it off."

Gomery also slammed Harper for abandoning the effort to install a new appointments commissioner to ensure that merit – not patronage – would be the main criterion in naming people to the boards of Crown corporations and other key posts.

Conference Board Backs Carbon Taxes

The Conference Board of Canada is recommending the prompt introduction of hefty carbon taxes on businesses and individuals alike in order to curb greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. From the Toronto Star:

"The think-tank joined a growing list of research and business groups calling for taxes or other financial policies to reduce emissions from coal, oil, gas and other fossil fuels.

All companies and individuals should pay a tax that stings enough to make them change their behaviour and adopt less-polluting technologies, the report says.

The recommendation includes measures far tougher than what the report calls the federal government's "modest" climate change plan. It also suggests a starting price of about $25 a tonne for emissions – far higher than Ottawa has proposed in its limited scheme – and says the price should keep rising.

For Canada's largest greenhouse gas emitters – mainly in the oil and gas industry, electricity generation and major energy users such as steel, aluminum, chemicals, mining, cement and forest products– the board proposes the tax be accompanied by an emissions cap-and-trade system.

"Canadians pay nothing to spew greenhouse gases, even though the pollution will cause floods, droughts, storm damage, physical and mental health problems and many other "potentially irreversible disruptions," the report says. "Since there is no price on these negative consequences, consumers and producers have no need to factor the cost of emissions into their decision-making."

The challenge, the board says, "is to derive a price ... which consumers and producers would then take into account."

The Capital Crimes of Sayed Kambaksh

Sayed Pervez Kambaksh is an Afghan journalism student recently sentenced to death by an Islamic court for offending Islam, essentially blasphemy.

According to The Independent, Kambaksh's crime consisted of downloading and distributing a report he obtained from the internet.

"He was accused of blasphemy after he downloaded a report from a Farsi website that stated that Muslim fundamentalists who claimed the Koran justified the oppression of women had misrepresented the views of the prophet Mohamed.

Kambaksh, 23, distributed the tract to fellow students and teachers at Balkh University with the aim, he said, of provoking a debate on the matter. But a complaint was made against him, and he was arrested, tried by religious judges without -- say his friends and family -- being allowed legal representation and sentenced to death.

The United Nations, human rights groups, journalists' organizations and Western diplomats have urged Karzai's government to intervene and free him. But the Afghan Senate passed a motion yesterday confirming the death sentence.

The MP who proposed the ruling condemning Kambaksh was Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, a key ally of Karzai. The Senate also attacked the international community for putting pressure on the Afghan government and urged Karzai not to be influenced by outside non-Islamic views.

Kambaksh's brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, is also a journalist and has written articles for IWPR in which he accused senior public figures, including an MP, of atrocities, including murders. He said: "Of course we are all very worried about my brother. What has happened to him is very unjust. He has not committed blasphemy, and he was not even allowed to have a legal defense. And what took place was a secret trial."

Qayoum Baabak, the editor of Jahan-i-Naw, said a senior prosecutor in Mazar-i-Sharif, Hafiz Khaliqyar, had warned journalists that they would be punished if they protested against the death sentence passed on Kambaksh.

So, this is the grand, democratic Afghanistan our soldiers are dying to defend? This rabid fundamentalist, vile, corrupt, narco-state? The notion of a decent Afghanistan worthy of joining the community of nations is slipping through our fingers and the troubles don't lie just across the border in Pakistan but also in the mosques of Afghanistan and in its central government palaces in Kabul. Our side in this civil war, the thugs we put into power after driving the Taliban out, are reminding us that neither side was worth saving.