There has been a lot of confusion about what Occupy Wall Street and its progeny really stand for (we'll henceforth refer to it as simply "Occupy"). People from across the socio-political spectrum have had difficulty identifying the meaning behind Occupy. This is no surprise as members and supporters of Occupy have refused to come up with a consistent message. Luckily, a quick look at the circumstances leading to Occupy, and the majority of the opinions that have come out of Occupy, give us a very clear answer.
The most dominant message has been the 99% versus the 1%. This has lead people to believe Occupy is anti-wealth and anti-wealthy. People believe this makes Occupy a socialist movement. It doesn't. The 99% versus 1% message is merely an attention getter. It fits nicely on a sign, and media types like how neatly it defines the terms for them. Occupy knows that not everyone in the 1% is evil. This is just a convenient way to summarize the conflict.
The real message is found in the choice of locations. For those out there who think this is about putting down the wealthy and stealing their money, think about why the name "Occupy Wall Street" and location was chosen over options like "Occupy Beverly Hills" or "Occupy the Hamptons" or "Occupy Palm Beach." The choice of location puts the enemy squarely in Occupy's sights: Wall Street bankers. Wall Street spent the past 15 years trading toxic assets like a game of hot potato. Finally, in 2008, some bankers were caught with the potato. The financial institutions that made bad bets and were eventually bailed out makes for a long list. A bail-out is one thing. A lot of these financial institutions were legitimately "too big to fail" (an issue onto itself). The real insult comes in the aftermath of the bailout. For example, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, who were caught with a large portion of the hot potato, received approximately $170 billion in bail out money. Their executives turned around and paid themselves $35 million in salary and bonuses. Do the executives of a financial institution that failed and were saved by taxpayers deserve any bonuses at all? Of course not. But this is the type of "punishment" executives at banks across America received for their significant part in running the world economy into the ground. Over $18 billion was paid in bonuses on Wall Street in 2009 after the bailout. This is the heart of Occupy's protest. The people who's assets were critically devalued are paying the price. The people who caused it are walking away with the profits they made trading those assets, the tax money they received in the form of bailouts, and the bonuses. The people are paying. Why aren't the executives?
The other side of Occupy's protest is directed towards Washington. The cozy relationship between Washington and Wall Street can be summed up in one person: President Barack Obama's Chief-of-Staff is former JPMorgan Chase executive Bill Daley. You'll recognize JPMorgan Chase from the list of bailed out banks above - and Bill Daley was there right up until the bail out came. A closer look will reveal an even more incestuous relationship. The government agency that is supposed to police Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has done exactly the opposite. They've shredded records of investigations, they've called off investigations for no apparent reason, and they've had a revolving door at top leadership levels. Where does that revolving door lead? To big Wall Street banks being investigated. The above article shows the stunning coincidence of investigations being dropped and the decision-makers who dropped the investigation moving from the SEC into high-paid positions with the bank that was being investigated. Occupy knows that Washington should respond to voters, not donors. To the people, not the banks.
Of course there have been other reported Occupy demands. As with any movement, there are fringes. There are the anarchist, who would otherwise be squatting elsewhere anyway. There are the communists hoping to tax the wealthy until they're just average.
But the core of the Occupy movement is nothing of the sort. The core has been supported by leading economists like Jeffrey D Sachs and Richard Florida. The core wants the rich to pay its share. Common are calls for reasonable taxation on hedge-fund traders, a small "wealth tax", a break-up of the "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions that required bail outs, and honest, meaningful enforcement of the laws designed to stop financial institutions from causing world economic collapses.
Occupy is not asking to have the 1% stripped of their wealth, for companies to forgo profits, or to end capitalism. The wealthy are wealthy because they've earned it (usually). Capitalism and profits are important motivators for individuals and economies. Occupy is asking for financial institutions and others in the 1% who have been cheating to play by the rules. Occupy is asking the super-wealthy to pay their share. Even some in the super-wealthy are promoting this argument.
Ultimately, in spite of everything you've read so far, Occupy is about one thing: "government of the people, by the people, for the people". When the President's top adviser is a former Wall Street executive, when Wall Street is in bed with the SEC (imagine if Al Capone and Eliot Ness were sleeping together), and when money buys politicians, it is clear that Lincoln's declaration has been ignored. Occupy demands that its government, the US government, resume representing the people. That is a message that I can get behind. That should be the goal of every government: represent the people. Until Washington gets that right, I'll continue to support Occupy.
Showing posts with label International Affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Affairs. Show all posts
17 November 2011
17 January 2011
If an election is coming, here's how the Liberals can win it
My former co-blogger Pat McIver tweeted today in reference to a recent Globe and Mail article. The article explores Liberal Party and Official Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff's options should an election everyone thinks is coming actually come this spring. The numbers show a slight Conservative advantage (generally in the range of about 5% +/- a couple). So where should Iggy and the Grits be looking for votes? Should they target the NDP, who has long been stealing left-leaning Liberal voters, or the Conservatives themselves?
In my opinion, the Liberals need to go straight at the Conservatives. Bold? Absolutely. But not foolish. And besides that, nobody ever got anywhere without taking a chance.
The Conservatives have alienated a large portion of their supporters. The last - disastrous - budget sent many fiscally conservative Tories into a major tizzy (Mr. McIver included). While many of them will have a hard time finding evidence that a Liberal budget would have been any different, the fact remains that the last time any fiscal conservative was properly served by their government, it was a Liberal government with a right-leaning Finance Minister. Well, the current Liberal Party has done one better: it has a right-leaning leader (and would-be Prime Minister) and a former RBC Chief Economist (and would-be Finance Minister). Since advocating for expensive economic subsidies in late 2008 and early 2009, the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff has consistently advocated for responsible budgets.* There is a large section of (small-c) conservatives who are looking for that kind of fiscal direction from federal politicians.
But Ignatieff can't afford to lose his current supporters either. Current Liberals, while many of them are also looking for balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, value social responsibility. This means continuing to advocate and protect Canada's successful and valuable social programs, and cutting the ones that don't work. This also means coming up with a meaningful environmental policy that Canadians are telling government they want. Canadians, Conservative, Liberal or otherwise, are ashamed of being part of Canada the pariah state. To be clear, being environmentally and socially responsible does not require being fiscally irresponsible. By directing tax breaks and subsidies in the right direction, instead of continuing in the wrong direction (for example, the [admittedly] Liberal initiated subsidies for tar sands exploration), the government can promote growth while being fiscally responsible.** Ideally, that means putting a few billion dollars into a struggling green industry instead of a booming oil industry.
The big issue right now, the issue the federal political parties are drawing the line in the sand over, is corporate tax cuts. The Conservative government committed to, and has refused to abandon, absurd corporate tax cuts. Rather than relying on some pie-in-the-sky theory that cutting corporate tax cuts in the middle of a massive deficit will boost the Canadian economy and create growth, the Liberals (and the NDP) have advocated a more responsible approach: cancel the tax cuts until the government's fiscal house is in order. Corporate tax cuts now are like asking for a pay cut at work so that your company can save money when you can't afford to pay the rent. Unfortunately the Conservative government is committed to cutting off the nose to spite the face.
My message to Michael Ignatieff: go at the Conservatives with a strong, responsible fiscal policy that includes balanced budgets and reasonable spending. Show Canadians how a Liberal government will turn massive deficits into a small surplus over the course of their term in office. Show Canadians how we can make the right environmental steps by promoting the right industries. A government that is willing to protect the environment by stimulating the right sectors of the economy (instead of the wrong ones) will be rewarded by the majority of reasonable Canadians. Even the left-leaning Liberals who've been voting NDP will be won with that simple message. Canadians have never really liked Stephen Harper, but neither have they had a reason to go anywhere else. It is time to give them that reason.
----------
Notes:
* The disastrous budget of the "Coalition of the Willing" (including the Tories who actually introduced it and voted for it) was a mistake. But two years on the Liberal message, under a new leader (that budget was initially advocated for while the Liberals were led by Stephane Dion), has been fiscal restraint and responsibility. Yes, Ignatieff's Liberals have asked Stephen Harper why he didn't spend the money in the budget as he said he would, but that's not advocating irresponsible spending, that's advocating an adherence to the law of the budget. It's like saying, "Would we have introduced that last budget? No. But Parliament approved it and now you need to stick to it, right or wrong." Ignatieff's Liberals have advocated, consistently, fiscal responsibility.
** Yes, the Liberals in the 1990s created the tar sands subsidies that I'm advocating against. And in the 1990s, when oil was cheap and the tar sands industry was floundering, those subsidies and tax breaks made economic sense. That industry is booming now (and booming as irresponsibly as possible). It is time to revoke those subsidies - they no longer make economic sense. Subsidizing an industry is something a government can reasonably do when that industry is struggling or in its infancy, not when it is mature and booming. It is time to shift those subsidies to a new struggling, infant, industry - green industry.
In my opinion, the Liberals need to go straight at the Conservatives. Bold? Absolutely. But not foolish. And besides that, nobody ever got anywhere without taking a chance.
The Conservatives have alienated a large portion of their supporters. The last - disastrous - budget sent many fiscally conservative Tories into a major tizzy (Mr. McIver included). While many of them will have a hard time finding evidence that a Liberal budget would have been any different, the fact remains that the last time any fiscal conservative was properly served by their government, it was a Liberal government with a right-leaning Finance Minister. Well, the current Liberal Party has done one better: it has a right-leaning leader (and would-be Prime Minister) and a former RBC Chief Economist (and would-be Finance Minister). Since advocating for expensive economic subsidies in late 2008 and early 2009, the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff has consistently advocated for responsible budgets.* There is a large section of (small-c) conservatives who are looking for that kind of fiscal direction from federal politicians.
But Ignatieff can't afford to lose his current supporters either. Current Liberals, while many of them are also looking for balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, value social responsibility. This means continuing to advocate and protect Canada's successful and valuable social programs, and cutting the ones that don't work. This also means coming up with a meaningful environmental policy that Canadians are telling government they want. Canadians, Conservative, Liberal or otherwise, are ashamed of being part of Canada the pariah state. To be clear, being environmentally and socially responsible does not require being fiscally irresponsible. By directing tax breaks and subsidies in the right direction, instead of continuing in the wrong direction (for example, the [admittedly] Liberal initiated subsidies for tar sands exploration), the government can promote growth while being fiscally responsible.** Ideally, that means putting a few billion dollars into a struggling green industry instead of a booming oil industry.
The big issue right now, the issue the federal political parties are drawing the line in the sand over, is corporate tax cuts. The Conservative government committed to, and has refused to abandon, absurd corporate tax cuts. Rather than relying on some pie-in-the-sky theory that cutting corporate tax cuts in the middle of a massive deficit will boost the Canadian economy and create growth, the Liberals (and the NDP) have advocated a more responsible approach: cancel the tax cuts until the government's fiscal house is in order. Corporate tax cuts now are like asking for a pay cut at work so that your company can save money when you can't afford to pay the rent. Unfortunately the Conservative government is committed to cutting off the nose to spite the face.
My message to Michael Ignatieff: go at the Conservatives with a strong, responsible fiscal policy that includes balanced budgets and reasonable spending. Show Canadians how a Liberal government will turn massive deficits into a small surplus over the course of their term in office. Show Canadians how we can make the right environmental steps by promoting the right industries. A government that is willing to protect the environment by stimulating the right sectors of the economy (instead of the wrong ones) will be rewarded by the majority of reasonable Canadians. Even the left-leaning Liberals who've been voting NDP will be won with that simple message. Canadians have never really liked Stephen Harper, but neither have they had a reason to go anywhere else. It is time to give them that reason.
----------
Notes:
* The disastrous budget of the "Coalition of the Willing" (including the Tories who actually introduced it and voted for it) was a mistake. But two years on the Liberal message, under a new leader (that budget was initially advocated for while the Liberals were led by Stephane Dion), has been fiscal restraint and responsibility. Yes, Ignatieff's Liberals have asked Stephen Harper why he didn't spend the money in the budget as he said he would, but that's not advocating irresponsible spending, that's advocating an adherence to the law of the budget. It's like saying, "Would we have introduced that last budget? No. But Parliament approved it and now you need to stick to it, right or wrong." Ignatieff's Liberals have advocated, consistently, fiscal responsibility.
** Yes, the Liberals in the 1990s created the tar sands subsidies that I'm advocating against. And in the 1990s, when oil was cheap and the tar sands industry was floundering, those subsidies and tax breaks made economic sense. That industry is booming now (and booming as irresponsibly as possible). It is time to revoke those subsidies - they no longer make economic sense. Subsidizing an industry is something a government can reasonably do when that industry is struggling or in its infancy, not when it is mature and booming. It is time to shift those subsidies to a new struggling, infant, industry - green industry.
06 May 2008
The Return (aka. World Food Crisis...and Canada)
I call this post "The Return" because it has been nearly a year (10 months, 13 days to be precise) since I last blogged. I apologize to my faithful reader for my neglect. I add, in parentheses, "aka. World Food Prices...and Canada" because that's what this post is actually about. My interest spawned from an article in Time magazine and is the latest in an exchange of emails with a friend. Enjoy!
After your response I decided to do a little more research into the subject. I think I did perhaps overstate the roll of biofuels, but nevertheless was correct that they are a major factor today, and will be an increasingly impactful factor in the years to come. Second and third generation biofuels (such as the switchgrass that you mention, and algea) are perhaps a decade away (though my money says much sooner). This article at http://www.wikipedia.org/ was a very good starting point for me in my research: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007-2008_world_food_price_crisis).
The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that "the very tight situation of the current 2007/08 season has led to a steady rise in world prices of all cereals, pushing up the food import bill of many importing countries and generating widespread sharp increases in domestic food prices." This suggests that, world-wide, supply is a major aspect of the current crisis. Further in the same report, the FAO claims that, "World wheat stocks by the close of seasons in 2008 are forecast at 144 million tonnes, down 9 percent from their already reduced opening level." These reduced supply numbers, combined with increased diversion from food to fuel (100 million tonnes of cereals, or about 5% of total production, will be used for biofuels according to the FAO), are significant. I believe 5% is meaningful, especially if, as the FAO claims, world supply is already down. These figures indicate that supply and demand is a major factor in world food prices and that (as you suggested) market speculation is exaggerating this big problem into a crisis (1).
I also somewhat suspect that you are arguing more based on the situation in Canada, which I assume is somewhat less dire than the international situation. In fact the FAO projects an 5% increase in wheat production from 2007 to 2008 in Canada (2). But while production is projected to increase, cereals stocks are projected to be at barely half the level they were in 2006: 8.5 million tonnes in 2008 versus 16.2 million tonnes in 2006 (3).
I guess my only argument would be that this is a world food crisis, not simply a Canadian one. If the Canadian government is interested in taking up this cause (as it must), it needs to think globally, not just nationally. That means it needs to consider global factors. Especially since Canadians (for the most part) can afford to pay a bit more for food - the roughly 1.1 billion people living in extreme poverty, who are most affected by this price increase, simply cannot.
(I hope this friend doesn't mind!)
After your response I decided to do a little more research into the subject. I think I did perhaps overstate the roll of biofuels, but nevertheless was correct that they are a major factor today, and will be an increasingly impactful factor in the years to come. Second and third generation biofuels (such as the switchgrass that you mention, and algea) are perhaps a decade away (though my money says much sooner). This article at http://www.wikipedia.org/ was a very good starting point for me in my research: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007-2008_world_food_price_crisis).
The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that "the very tight situation of the current 2007/08 season has led to a steady rise in world prices of all cereals, pushing up the food import bill of many importing countries and generating widespread sharp increases in domestic food prices." This suggests that, world-wide, supply is a major aspect of the current crisis. Further in the same report, the FAO claims that, "World wheat stocks by the close of seasons in 2008 are forecast at 144 million tonnes, down 9 percent from their already reduced opening level." These reduced supply numbers, combined with increased diversion from food to fuel (100 million tonnes of cereals, or about 5% of total production, will be used for biofuels according to the FAO), are significant. I believe 5% is meaningful, especially if, as the FAO claims, world supply is already down. These figures indicate that supply and demand is a major factor in world food prices and that (as you suggested) market speculation is exaggerating this big problem into a crisis (1).
I also somewhat suspect that you are arguing more based on the situation in Canada, which I assume is somewhat less dire than the international situation. In fact the FAO projects an 5% increase in wheat production from 2007 to 2008 in Canada (2). But while production is projected to increase, cereals stocks are projected to be at barely half the level they were in 2006: 8.5 million tonnes in 2008 versus 16.2 million tonnes in 2006 (3).
I guess my only argument would be that this is a world food crisis, not simply a Canadian one. If the Canadian government is interested in taking up this cause (as it must), it needs to think globally, not just nationally. That means it needs to consider global factors. Especially since Canadians (for the most part) can afford to pay a bit more for food - the roughly 1.1 billion people living in extreme poverty, who are most affected by this price increase, simply cannot.
(I hope this friend doesn't mind!)
02 April 2007
Something About Iraq that Didn't Seem Old to Me
You may have noticed that I haven't posted anything about Iraq in a long time. In fact, I believe I've only ever posted on the topic once since Kerr's Comments started a couple months ago. Iraq is all over the news, it's reported everyday, ad nauseam, so I steer clear and try to give a voice to other issues. Well, I've decided to make an exception. I was reading an article in Time magazine entitled The War Turns 4. Here's the quote that caught my eye:
I don't think this needs analysis. Fucking evil.
An Iraqi mother hopes her children will be safe - but then she learns that bombers are placing children visibly in the backseat, as unwitting little decoys, so the car can clear the checkpoints before the driver blows it up, with the children still inside.
I don't think this needs analysis. Fucking evil.
04 March 2007
N1KD Done Right!
If you've been a consistent reader of my blog(s) you know I was involved in organizing a local edition of the Night of 1000 Dinners in support of the Canadian Landmine Foundation. The event was last night (March 3) at the Royal Canadian Legion branch in Sarnia.
The dinner went off (almost) without a hitch. Aside from some minor technical problems, everything went as planned. The food (courtesy of Legion volunteers) was spectacular. The games (courtesy MC Tim Fugard) kept spirits up. Short speaches from Alex Palimaka, Anne-Marie Gillis, and Terry Burrell helped drive the message home. All told, the dinner raised over $2400 for the Canadian Landmine Foundation . All of the money raised will go directly to demining and rehabilitation of communities torn by landmines.
Thanks to everyone who came out in support of a great cause, thanks to everyone who made generous donations, and thanks to everyone who worked so hard to make this event a success. We had barely over a month to get this set up and we pulled it off. Hope to see you all next year!
The dinner went off (almost) without a hitch. Aside from some minor technical problems, everything went as planned. The food (courtesy of Legion volunteers) was spectacular. The games (courtesy MC Tim Fugard) kept spirits up. Short speaches from Alex Palimaka, Anne-Marie Gillis, and Terry Burrell helped drive the message home. All told, the dinner raised over $2400 for the Canadian Landmine Foundation . All of the money raised will go directly to demining and rehabilitation of communities torn by landmines.
Thanks to everyone who came out in support of a great cause, thanks to everyone who made generous donations, and thanks to everyone who worked so hard to make this event a success. We had barely over a month to get this set up and we pulled it off. Hope to see you all next year!
25 February 2007
Afghanistan vs Iraq
This blog is directed to Mr. Patrick McIver. The venerable Mr. McIver asked me to clarify why I believe the invasion of Afghanistan was more justifiable than the invasion of Iraq. He correctly notes that both invasions were aimed at overthrowing a dictatorship. I will argue that there is a slight yet vital difference.
I argued that the invasion of Afghanistan was morally justifiable and in doing so implied the invasion of Iraq was not. First, I want to say (read: admit) that I was in favour of the invasion of Iraq. I said as early as winter 2001 that an invasion of Iraq was likely. I knew that the American intelligence and military elite wanted to oust Saddam Hussein long before 9/11. I recognized the tragedy of 9/11 as an event that could be used to finally get a President (George W. Bush as it were) and the American public on board. I was in favour of the invasion because the Saddam regime was dangerous (primarily to Iraqis) and illegitimate.*
But more to the point is the connection between the first strike (9/11) and the subsequent American military action. Every state has the right (and duty) to protect itself and respond to attack. The attacking organization was al-Qaeda. This terrorist organization was (is) primarily based in Afghanistan. The Afghan government at the time (the Taliban) was propped up by al-Qaeda. Without al-Qaeda's money and arms, the Taliban could have been easily ousted by a popular uprising. This is important to understanding why Afghanistan was attacked while other al-Qaeda friendly states (such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) were able to avoid this fate. While other states could maintain themselves without al-Qaeda's support, the Taliban could not, and as such, any choice they made in the aftermath of 9/11 would have meant their demise (choose to oust al-Qeada and face civil war, choose to support al-Qaeda and face a NATO invasion). The more immediate threat came from the home front, so the Taliban chose to stick with al-Qaeda. This meant they were in direct conflict with the US, and consequently they were invaded.
The invasion of Afghanistan was morally justifiable because the Americans were attacked by what was, for all intents and purposes, the Afghan government. This was an odd invasion because, to be frank, the US did not know how to respond to the first strike. War with a state (an entity that has defined borders and clearly defined power structures) is easy. War with al-Qaeda is difficult. It has no territory to attack, it is almost more of an ideology than a physical organization. So the Americans opted to attack states that supported al-Qaeda. Afghanistan was just such a state. I can accept this reasoning. It was right to invade Afghanistan because there was no question that the Taliban and al-Qaeda were effectively one and the same.**
Basically, my argument is, the invasion of Afghanistan was an invasion against an attacking force. Therefore, it was morally justifiable.
The invasion of Iraq was also morally justifiable. Since there was no real connection between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda (in fact there was a rift between the two - they only ever agreed on their hatred of America), the invasion could not be justified as a response to 9/11 (even though the Bush Administration tried). The Iraq invasion was 100% justifiable on the grounds of protecting human rights. Saddam was among the worst of history's tyrants. He needed to be overthrown. He used chemical weapons against his own population (the Kurds). American soldiers may not have found WMDs, but they did find mass graves where Saddam stashed those who dared dissent.***
So, to answer Mr. McIver's question, the invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable because there was a direct connection between Afghanistan and the events of 9/11.
The invasion of Iraq, while botched beyond belief, was also justifiable (though not for the reasons the Bush Administration used).
Pat, if I have not made clear the differentiation, I blame the rye and cokes...and the beers. Ask again and I'll try to do this sober next time!
-----
* Any regime that does not have the support of the majority of its population is illegitimate, any regime that does not recognize its citizens' fundamental freedoms is illegitimate.
** When you consider the Taliban's record on human rights, the invasion appears almost to have been tardy. I could have accepted an invasion of Afghanistan even before 9/11.
*** WMDs = weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological and nuclear weapons)
P.S. - I hope I don't have to clarify the difference between a regime and a government because it isn't easy for me to put into words. For example: Stephen Harper leads one government while Paul Martin lead another. Both Stephen Harper and Paul Martin were leaders in the Canadian regime. A regime is bigger than its government, it includes the laws and ideals of a state. When I say "any regime that does not have the support of the majority of its population is illegitimate," I am not suggesting that Stephen Harper's reign is illegitimate because he won less than a majority of the vote. His government is legitimate because Canadians (whether we voted for him or not) are willing to accept his authority. Our acceptance of his authority is based on our acceptance of the Canadian regime. If that's not clear, click here. Maybe Wikipedia is a better teacher than I.
I argued that the invasion of Afghanistan was morally justifiable and in doing so implied the invasion of Iraq was not. First, I want to say (read: admit) that I was in favour of the invasion of Iraq. I said as early as winter 2001 that an invasion of Iraq was likely. I knew that the American intelligence and military elite wanted to oust Saddam Hussein long before 9/11. I recognized the tragedy of 9/11 as an event that could be used to finally get a President (George W. Bush as it were) and the American public on board. I was in favour of the invasion because the Saddam regime was dangerous (primarily to Iraqis) and illegitimate.*
But more to the point is the connection between the first strike (9/11) and the subsequent American military action. Every state has the right (and duty) to protect itself and respond to attack. The attacking organization was al-Qaeda. This terrorist organization was (is) primarily based in Afghanistan. The Afghan government at the time (the Taliban) was propped up by al-Qaeda. Without al-Qaeda's money and arms, the Taliban could have been easily ousted by a popular uprising. This is important to understanding why Afghanistan was attacked while other al-Qaeda friendly states (such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) were able to avoid this fate. While other states could maintain themselves without al-Qaeda's support, the Taliban could not, and as such, any choice they made in the aftermath of 9/11 would have meant their demise (choose to oust al-Qeada and face civil war, choose to support al-Qaeda and face a NATO invasion). The more immediate threat came from the home front, so the Taliban chose to stick with al-Qaeda. This meant they were in direct conflict with the US, and consequently they were invaded.
The invasion of Afghanistan was morally justifiable because the Americans were attacked by what was, for all intents and purposes, the Afghan government. This was an odd invasion because, to be frank, the US did not know how to respond to the first strike. War with a state (an entity that has defined borders and clearly defined power structures) is easy. War with al-Qaeda is difficult. It has no territory to attack, it is almost more of an ideology than a physical organization. So the Americans opted to attack states that supported al-Qaeda. Afghanistan was just such a state. I can accept this reasoning. It was right to invade Afghanistan because there was no question that the Taliban and al-Qaeda were effectively one and the same.**
Basically, my argument is, the invasion of Afghanistan was an invasion against an attacking force. Therefore, it was morally justifiable.
The invasion of Iraq was also morally justifiable. Since there was no real connection between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda (in fact there was a rift between the two - they only ever agreed on their hatred of America), the invasion could not be justified as a response to 9/11 (even though the Bush Administration tried). The Iraq invasion was 100% justifiable on the grounds of protecting human rights. Saddam was among the worst of history's tyrants. He needed to be overthrown. He used chemical weapons against his own population (the Kurds). American soldiers may not have found WMDs, but they did find mass graves where Saddam stashed those who dared dissent.***
So, to answer Mr. McIver's question, the invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable because there was a direct connection between Afghanistan and the events of 9/11.
The invasion of Iraq, while botched beyond belief, was also justifiable (though not for the reasons the Bush Administration used).
Pat, if I have not made clear the differentiation, I blame the rye and cokes...and the beers. Ask again and I'll try to do this sober next time!
-----
* Any regime that does not have the support of the majority of its population is illegitimate, any regime that does not recognize its citizens' fundamental freedoms is illegitimate.
** When you consider the Taliban's record on human rights, the invasion appears almost to have been tardy. I could have accepted an invasion of Afghanistan even before 9/11.
*** WMDs = weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological and nuclear weapons)
P.S. - I hope I don't have to clarify the difference between a regime and a government because it isn't easy for me to put into words. For example: Stephen Harper leads one government while Paul Martin lead another. Both Stephen Harper and Paul Martin were leaders in the Canadian regime. A regime is bigger than its government, it includes the laws and ideals of a state. When I say "any regime that does not have the support of the majority of its population is illegitimate," I am not suggesting that Stephen Harper's reign is illegitimate because he won less than a majority of the vote. His government is legitimate because Canadians (whether we voted for him or not) are willing to accept his authority. Our acceptance of his authority is based on our acceptance of the Canadian regime. If that's not clear, click here. Maybe Wikipedia is a better teacher than I.
23 February 2007
Blair Still in Bush's Pocket
A few days ago brought big news from Great Britain. British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced a significant withdrawal of troops from Iraq. News headlines touted the end of the "Coalition of the Willing." Today the Globe and Mail is reporting that Britain will be sending more troops to Afghanistan (America's other war). I can hear the conversation now:
Blair: George, I'm getting killed here, I need to get my boys out of Iraq.
Bush: Sorry Tony, we need you. Without you it's just us and Togo.
Blair: I really can't keep them there. I wish there was something we could work out.
Bush: I've got an idea. You can withdraw some troops from Iraq if you promise to send them to Afghanistan.
Blair: That's brilliant George! I can continue to be your lap dog AND look good in the papers!
Bush: Here's a treat, now roll over...Good boy!
So Blair is doing the noble thing and withdrawing from America's "illegal" war. But what he's really doing is sending his boys to a different frontline on Bush's war on terror. Don't get me wrong, the war in Afghanistan is something I am behind 100%. I believe this war was certainly morally justifiable and I believe (slow) progress is being made (unlike in Iraq). I welcome the arrival of British troops to take some of the strain off the Canadian forces who've been in all the most dangerous situations over the past year. I welcome more troops and more assistance in a country that needs it. Just don't think that Blair nobly stood in defiance of his American allies.
Blair: George, I'm getting killed here, I need to get my boys out of Iraq.
Bush: Sorry Tony, we need you. Without you it's just us and Togo.
Blair: I really can't keep them there. I wish there was something we could work out.
Bush: I've got an idea. You can withdraw some troops from Iraq if you promise to send them to Afghanistan.
Blair: That's brilliant George! I can continue to be your lap dog AND look good in the papers!
Bush: Here's a treat, now roll over...Good boy!
So Blair is doing the noble thing and withdrawing from America's "illegal" war. But what he's really doing is sending his boys to a different frontline on Bush's war on terror. Don't get me wrong, the war in Afghanistan is something I am behind 100%. I believe this war was certainly morally justifiable and I believe (slow) progress is being made (unlike in Iraq). I welcome the arrival of British troops to take some of the strain off the Canadian forces who've been in all the most dangerous situations over the past year. I welcome more troops and more assistance in a country that needs it. Just don't think that Blair nobly stood in defiance of his American allies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)