Let’s Talk About Antisemitisim

Although the term “antisemitism” originated in the nineteenth century to describe hatred of Jews, that hatred predated it by millennia. At least in the Christian West, it is rooted in the myth of deicide, that is, the belief that Jews killed Christ. Although the historical record contradicts that belief, and there is little, if any, biblical support for it, it has been used to justify the persecution and murder of Jews for centuries, culminating in the Holocaust where most of European Jewry were slaughtered. The Holocaust led to a collective commitment, at aleast in the West: “Never Again”.

Although it seems unlikely today, the Muslim world has traditionally been more accepting of Jews than has the Christian. In fact, when the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 many fled to the Ottoman Empire where they lived and prospered for generations. That changed in 1948 when the United Nations brought an end to the British Mandate in Palestine and created the two states of Israel and Palestine. More than 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from the land that was now the new state of Israel. This event is called the Nakba. What is less well known is that in excess of 900,000 Jews were also expelled from their homes in Muslim countries in the Middle East and the Maghreb, with most of them settling in Israel. There was plenty of suffering to go around.

The drive by Zionists to create the modern state of Israel began in Europe in the nineteenth century in response to centuries of persecution and worse. Although settlements were established prior to the Second World War, the Holocaust put that effort into overdrive and allowed the Zionists to garner sufficient international support to gain its sanction by the United Nations. Although there were some efforts to establish a homeland elsewhere, including in parts of devastated Europe, the emotional pull of the Middle East, where Jews had lived for over three thousand years, was irresistible. Immediately upon the creation of modern Israel, the surrounding Arab states invaded seeking to exterminate it before it could get started. They were defeated, as they were in 1967 and 1973. Even when not faced with a full scale invasion, Israel has always been surrounded by hostile nations and groups committed to its destruction and in response has built the strongest military in the region.

Which brings us to today. Israel and the United States are now engaged in a war with Iran whose stated objectives change by the day and runs the risk of bogging down into a long and bloody struggle with an uncertain outcome. At the same time, and in response to Hezbollah’s attacks in support of its Iranian patron, Israel has begun to depopulate southern Lebanon and destroy the southern suburbs of Beirut. This follows the campaign in Gaza that was provoked by Hamas’ brutal attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023. That response resulted in the virtual destruction of Gaza, leaving millions of Palestinians homeless. While over 1200 Israelis were killed in the Hamas attack, tens of thousands of Palestinians died in the resulting Israeli response. Most of them were civilians, many of them children.

In the seventy eight years since its creation, Israel has become the undisputed super power in the Middle East, while its settler movement, with the active support of the current Israeli government, continues to expand the country’s territory through the illegal occupation and confiscation of Palestinian lands on the West Bank, effectively forclosing the possibility of a two state solution. There is much to criticize about Israel and its current government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, and including representatives of parties openly advocating for the genocide of the Palestinians. And that criticism is not only permissible but necessary, particularly from those of us who have supported the idea of an Israeli state that offers a safe haven from persecution for Jews around the world. But when that criticism crosses the line into antisemitism, and when it results in attacks on Jews everywhere regardless of their relationship to Israel, it is intolerable.

This is not a problem of the left or the right. Both harbour antisemtic beliefs in their more extreme reaches and, in both cases, those beliefs are seeping into their mainstreams, accelerated by the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. And while it is politically difficult to acknowledge, antisemtism is also being revived by first and second generation Muslim Canadians who, seeing the destruction in their former homelands, strike out against the closest thing to Israel they can find, Jewish Canadians and their institutions.

When my parents’ generation fought and won a war, and cemented the idea of “Never Again” into at least Western consciousness, it never occurred to them or to their children that “never” might end at seventy eight years. But here we are. The, at times I believe, deliberate, crossing of the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and its current government, and the ancient hatred of antisemitism; and the casual use of hateful Jewish stereotypes in online postings or on signs and posters ostensibly responding just to the current wars in the Middle East but clearely tapping into something older and darker, opens the door to a very dark future where a monster, once thought permanently entombed, is waiting to emerge.

Jews make up less than two percent of the Canadian population but they have contributed to the success of this country far out of proportion to their small number. Whether it’s in healthcare, the arts, education, politics, or civil society, they have always been there to push Canada forward. That they are now the object of open hatred, violence and vandalism is unconsionable, and every Canadian of good will should say so.

My Jewish friends ask me what can be done to counter this hatred. I don’t have a satisfactory answer. Clearly the Holocaust story should be incorporated into all levels of Canadian education, and the laws banning discrimination that are already on the books should be vigorously enforced. And politicians of all stripes should speak out strongly condemning those who traffic in the ancient, poisonous tropes. There is also something all of us can do: when we see it, name it. Call it out. Challenge those who, perhaps thoughtlessly or not, participate in the casual antisemitism emerging across Canada and the world, whether online, in casual conversation or in mainstream media. It might cost you a friendship but it’s the right thing to do.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear at the lower right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

Where is their Humanity?

On February 28 the United States and Israel began coordinated bombing of Iran, starting the current war. The initial strikes killed the senior Iranian leadership as well as more junior officials and targeted Iran’s air defences and other military installations. Likely due to outdated intelligence, one U.S. tomahawk missile slammed into an occupied girls’ school killing more than 170, most of them children. Since then, the United States has tried to deflect blame for this explosion, even suggesting it was done by the Iranians themselves to provide a propaganda win in the midst of the conflict. As the inquiry to the event continues, however, it seems evident the bomb was American, both in make and use.

On March 4 an American submarine torpedoed an Iranian warship in international waters off the southern coast of Sri Lanka. The ship was returning from military exercises that included the United States. Approximately one hundred and thirty sailors were onboard the ship. At least eighty seven died and thirty two were rescued by the Sri Lankan navy. Once it had struck the ship, the U.S. submarine made no attempt to rescue the survivors. In announcing the ship’s sinking, the U.S. Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, described it having “died a quiet death”.

As the war continues, more and more Iranians and Lebanese are being killed, the Lebanese in Israel’s renewed attack on Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah having entered the conflict on the side of Iran, giving Israel the excuse it needed to finish the job of eliminating the Hezbollah threat on its northern border. The latest, but probably conservative, estimates are that nearly two thousand non combatants have been killed, including some Israelis as a result of Iranian and Hezbollah missile and drone attacks on Israel.

So far, thirteen American service men and women have been killed, with at least one hundred and forty wounded.

Nothing about this war fits with the course of previous wars. Neither Israel nor America sought international support for it, nor did the American government prepare the American people for what may be a long and bloody conflict that was effectively launched by one man, Donald Trump. And, for America, that calls into question the legality of the President launching a war without Congressional approval, although Presidents of both parties have long been pushing the boundary on the authority to use the military to attack international targets.

Like many others, I am deeply conflicted by the war. On the one hand I think the Iranian regime is an abomination that deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history. But, on the other, I am deeply troubled that Donald Trump or any other President can unilaterally start a war without consulting and getting the consent of the other branches of government and, through them, the American people. Or, for that matter, at least trying to bring the international community on side.

Most of the writing about the war is focussing on questions of its legality, its lack of planning, its efficacy, its effect on domestic politics in America. I want to talk about something else: the astonishing lack of empathy being shown by American officials as they detail the gruesome toll of each day’s conflict. The principal spokesperson for the administration thus far has been Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, although the White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, is also playing a prominent role. Vice President, J.D. Vance has been conspicuously and uncharacteristically quiet since his initial remarks at the start of the war, and Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, while commenting, seems content to let Secretary Hegseth take the lead. Of course, President Trump is chirping in daily, although it’s difficult to find a consistent message in his statements.

What appalls me is the tone and attitude of these people as they describe what, by any standard, is a tragedy. War is hell. It’s the ultimate failure of human civilization as societies decide to attack and kill each other. And it’s for that very reason humanity has tried to build guardrails around it to mitigate its worst atrocities. This because at some level when we kill in war, we still understand we are taking a human life, something most people are conditioned against from their earliest age. Although I wasn’t there, I like to believe that even in the Battle of Britain when a Luftwaffe plane was shot down those watching felt a slight tremble at the realization that one or more young lives were being sacrified.

But for this compunction about war and killing to affect you you have to first have empathy, something apparently lacking in the current American administration. Watching these self proclaimed “Christians” bloviate triumphantly about blowing up this or that, or the specific killing of an enemy, I wonder what kind of families could produce such creatures, devoid of even a tiny bit of compassion? What kind of spiritual communities? What kind of society?

When Pete Hegseth smirks and describes the sinking of the Iranian warship by a U.S. submarine as it and its occupants having a “quiet death” I want to scream out about his inhumanity. What quiet death for the Iranian boys and young men as they sank into the cold dark waters of the Indian Ocean or burned alive on the deck of their ship? What were their last thoughts? Of their mothers? Of their fathers? Of their children and everyone else who loved them? Each of them was a person, and with their killing, all the human possibilities for generations to come ended.

Yes, war is hell and it’s not something to celebrate or cheer about. Not, that is, if you’re a normal, moral human being with a conscience.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear on the lower right hand side of your screen when you first open the blog.

They’re Colonizing Our Minds

Amidst all the discussion about artificial intelligence (“AI”), I’ve noticed a marked increase in posts on social media that I suspect are the result of AI. In my case, they present views I generally agree with from spokespeople I usually trust, be it George Conway, Rachel Madow or George Will. This, I believe, is the result of an algorithm tracking my social media and other online activity. While I don’t know for sure they are AI generated, there are some markers that point in that direction. In some cases, the presenter’s image is a slightly younger version of them or, in some other way, just a bit too perfect. Their speech, while coherent and seemingly well informed, is just too smooth and their mastery of the subject, exhaustive to the point it stretches credibility. Without exception, they say little if anything I disagree with and generally pander to my most enthusiastic beliefs.

Several friends are having the same experience which suggests this is not an isolated event. Which brings me to the question “who is doing it?” and “why are they doing it?”. The answers I suspect are quite sinister although my speculations may sound paranoid but, as the old saying goes, you can be paranoid and right at the same time. The past several years have seen the emergence of a billionaire class with at least one individual apprioaching the status of trillionaire. Apart from those who have inherited their fortunes, this group is mostly comprised of younger men who have done extraordinarily well in the world of technology, usually beginning with something as simple as a particularly successful app. Unlike previous wealthy men, they did not take years or decades to amass their fortunes but did so relatively quickly in the rapidly expanding world of information technology. Up to a point this seemed benign and, in fact, their emerged an image of the “woke”, progressive young men who were transforming the world in a way that would benefit everyone. The greatest concentration of this cohort was in Silicon Valley.

This positive image began to fray as some of its more prominent members acted out and made decisions clearly not in the public interest or, at least, not in the interest of members of their immediate communities. What began as a fraying has now devolved into a full scale collapse as billionaires rush to feed at the Trump trough, seeking to avoid regulation, government control and paying their fair share of taxes. If we needed any visual illustration of this their presence at Donald Trump’s second inauguration, along with their cringeworthy attempts to flatter him subsequently, provide it. This, along with the pictures of Jeff Bezos wedding, were as good a declaration as any, they were not on the side of most people and really could care less what the world thinks of them.

I have no training in psychology and don’t pretend to understand what motivates people who have so much to want more, but there is ample evidence that some in this group have a view of how the world should be organized that reflects their own inflated sense of self worth as measured by their accumulating wealth. Some of them are openly dismissive of democracy and advocate for a world designed by and for themselves. And some of them have influence, if not control, over how social media works for the rest of us.

We already know that algorithms used in social media are designed to herd us into tribes of like minded people. This is but an extension of what was already happening in society, but it is also an accelerant that is rapidly splintering societies and sowing active hostility amongst groups. And who benefits from that? Well, for starters, the so called populists like Donald Trump who hide their elitist and authoritarian views behind appeals to the least successful amongst us. But there’s also another group. The same group that wants to radically transform societies away from democracy towards some kind of technocratic dictatorship. The irony is that probably the best model of what they are aiming for is the Peoples’ Republic of China where a relatively small cadre of people exert enormous control over the rest of the population by employing, amongst other things, advanced technology. I suspect this is a comparison they would strongly eschew but, if the shoe fits…

So, what does any of this have to do with the appearance of avatars mouthing expertise and opinion on social networks? Possibly a lot. If someone wanted to sway public opinion, whether on an issue or an election, what could be more useful than having a population dependent upon him for information? Not him directly of course, but him through the structures he’s created to capture loyalty and trust on social media platforms. But, you might say, these avatars are expressing views I already hold, often views that seem contrary to what the Lords of Technology want, so how does this help them control me in the future? Think about it for a second. First they capture you, i.e. you come to rely on their platform for news and opinion, and then at some future point when the time is right, they start feeding misinformation and opinion into that platform. They might even continue to use the avatars to express opinions not in line with those held by the individuals they are mimicking.

Generally I ignore conspiracy theories but, in this case, there are too many clues pointing in this direction. In fact, Open AI CEO, Sam Altman, recently compared the amount of energy needed to train AI and that used to “train humans”, betraying a mindset capable of dehumanizing whole populations and effectively removing their free will. And that, I suspect, is the mindset of many of these new “Masters of the Universe”.

So, confronted with this threat, what can we do? Several things: first, governments should be pressured to require social media companies to clearly identify posts that are generated by AI and that are using avatars; second, when we see a post that is AI generated we should call it out by labelling it in “comments” (although don’t “share” it) and even if we just strongly suspect it is AI generated that, too, should be commented on; third, and this will be particularly difficult for younger people, we should never rely on social media for “news”, going back, instead, to legacy media (although I concede that may be easier said than done as the tech billionaires scoop up and change those legacy companies).

The threat this poses to open and democratic societies is enormous as the few seek to corral and control the many. It’s a battle as old as mankind but with a new and terrifying twist with the advent of technologies our ancestors couldn’t even have dreamed of. The first step in fighting back is to name it.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that appears on the bottom right side of your screen when you open the blog.

Adios Mexico?

Last Sunday Mexican authorities killed Nemesio Ruben Oseguera Cervantes, known as “El Mencho”, the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel. They did so with assistance from the United States that has been pressuring the Mexican government to go after the cartels who are responsible for human trafficking and drug smuggling into the U.S. and Canada (amongst other places). Anyone who has witnessed the devastating effects of fentanyl will have little reason to grieve his passing. El Mencho was but the latest of increasingly violent and cruel cartel bosses dominating much of Mexico, ensuring their dominance through expressions of savagery not seen in North America in a very long time.

In response to his killing the cartel launched a campaign of violence across Mexico but most intensely in the state of Jalisco and, particularly, in Guadalajara and Puerto Vallarta. Although the death toll thus far is limited mostly to cartel members and members of Mexico’s security forces, widespread damage, arson and looting has descended on both Guadalajara and Puerto Vallarta with “shelter in place” orders in effect in both. Thousands of tourists are trapped waiting to see what happens next and for evacuation by airlines that cancelled all flights for the first two or three days of the violence.

Some of the responses to this violence have focussed on the American role in providing the intelligence to locate El Mencho and its pressure on the Mexican government to go after him. That, in my view, is at least partly misplaced. I live in Vancouver, the epicenter of the fentanyl epidemic in Canada, and every day I see the human toll it is taking. People who are both physically and intellectually damaged beyond repair wander the streets usually harmlessly but, occasionally, not. Much of the illegal fentanyl fuelling this epidemic comes from Mexico under the auspices of the cartels.

When I say the criticism of America is “partly” misplaced I’m not referring to America’s fury and focus on the problem, but to the likelihood that killing one cartel leader will in any way effectively address the crisis. The approach is at one with much that the Trump administration has used on several fronts, seeing every problem as a nail and the best response, a hammer.

It is not yet clear what will happen next. The cartel may escalate, although, at this point, things seem to be quieting down but, even if that’s it for now, the ensuing battle for leadership of the cartel, or challenges to the cartel’s dominance, may result in further violence.

I have been visiting Mexico for many years, first Acapulco in the 1970’s and then, after it became too dangerous because of cartel activity, Puerto Vallarta. And while Puerto Vallarta has been a welcoming and friendly place, I have always been aware of the possibility of violence and danger as a result of the cartel’s activities. Any chance I might forget that was put aside by the presence of heavily armed Mexican soldiers on the beaches and around the town. I suppose for some they provided a sense of security but for me the presence of heavily armed men does nothing to calm my concerns.

Social media feeds from Puerto Vallarta are emphasizing the return to normalcy and the fact there was little loss of civilian life. I understand the city’s need to project that image and the deep affection many expatriots have for the town they have adopted as their own over many years. But I wonder how much of that is wishful thinking in the face of the awful facts of the last few days. I also wonder who the cartel soldiers are? There are obviously hundreds of them, if not more, and it’s not as if they hibernate in some dark cave until summoned to emerge into the light to commit their atrocities and wreck havoc. Who, amongst the many Mexicans visitors interact with, are also participants in this chaos? Like most other visitors to Mexico I appreciate the warmth and friendliness of the Mexicans I interract with but likely some are playing more than one role.

Part of me wants to believe these events are “one off’s” and that future travel to Puerto Vallarta will be safe and comfortable but another is urgently telling me this is a warning that shouldn’t be ignored. It’s true there were few civilian casualties this time and, thus far at least, none of them were tourists but what happens if the cartels decide to escalate in their battle with the government, particularly if the government is seen as acting because of pressure from America? It’s not much of a leap to go from the events of the past few days to the kidnapping and killing of tourists. The previous belief the cartels wouldn’t attack tourists or the principal tourist areas because of their own financial interests in tourism is at least partly undone by this recent unrest. If their survival is at stake, it’s clear nothing is off the table.

I was planning this weekend to book both hotel and air travel to Puerto Vallarta for later this fall. I still may but for now I’m going to pause. I think that would be a wise decision for everyone.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that appears on the lower right side of your screen when you open the blog.

Is This What You’ve Become America?

In an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security to Donald Trump, made several statements that went well beyond the question that was about “running Venezeula”, drawing attention back to the new National Security Policy that was issued a couple of weeks previous. If there was any hope that document was only a general statement of principles or a trial balloon, his comments laid that to rest.

Miller described a predatory America that claims hegemony over the entire Western Hemisphere, and that will take whatever it wants from smaller, weaker nations. He justified this as some kind of eternal law or rule that might makes right.

“Jake…we live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time…”

Shortly after, in an interview with the New York Times, Trump dismissed any limitation imposed by international laws or treaties, asserting his only limit was his own morality.

This, as should be clear now, is about much more than Venezuela. It signals that America will take what it wants, when it wants, regardless of another country’s legal and recognized claims of sovereignty, subject only to its ability to resist militarily. It completely ignores the human rights of the people of other nations. Essentially, it is betting that no country, except China and perhaps Russia, can say “no” to American demands.

Although some, myself included, have compared this to the gunboat diplomacy America imposed on much of Latin America in the latter half of the twentieth century, this is much more than that. In fact, a more apt comparison is with the savage imperialism that drove Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Stalin’s soviet empire, Hirohito’s imperial Japan and Leopold’s despoiling of the Belgium Congo, not to mention earlier European empires spanning the globe. And today we have Vladimir Putin’s Russia seeking to absorb Ukraine and pretend it never existed, much as Hitler and Stalin did to Poland during the Second World War. This is the company today’s America has chosen to keep.

While it’s true brute strength and domination have often predominated throughout human history, those periods seldom end well for either the oppressor or the oppressed. And they do end relatively quickly and brutally. But it’s also true that another, completely different, narrative about human and national relations has persisted in response to the explosions of human cruelty and brutality. Although its roots go much further back, what we call “the Enlightenment” emerged in the eighteenth century as a compelling belief that underpinned much of what is Western and democratic today. It sees humans as essentially moral creatures imbued with intellect and a drive to collaborate and cooperate for the good of all. It has been the foundation for much that we now consider progress, whether in peace between nations or collaboration and prosperity.

Ironically, at least in light of Stephen Miller’s views and statements, those beliefs from the Enlightenment are a foundational part of the American experiment. The language of “The Declaration of Independence”, the American Constitution and its first ten amendments that form “The Bill of Rights” all reflect this Enlightenment sensibility. That isn’t to say that in its first two hundred and fifty years America hasn’t strayed from those beliefs. In fact, the original sin of chattel slavery was there at the beginning, as well as other legal structures that valued some citizens more than others. But despite those shortcomings, American democracy could always reach back to those ideals to inspire and motivate its citizens and leaders, whether in the poetic language of Lincoln, Franklin Delano Rooselvelt, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama. It was a touchstone or, to borrow a very American cliche lifted from the Bible, “a shining city on a hill” that allowed correction and progress towards something more perfect.

Stephen Miller and Donald Trump dismiss these ideas and values as irrelevant frippery that has no tangible place in the real world of power and strength. They are wrong. Without the vision America is just another big country, stumbling around in the dark, inflicting damage wherever it goes, sowing seeds of resentment and resistance, and destined for the dustbin of history, perhaps sooner than later. And that would be a tragedy for all of us who believe in mankinds’ better nature.

I would like to believe this is just a passing spasm, that the American people really won’t continue down this path, that it is only a tiny minority that has been horribly empowered by unique historical circumstances and the failures of the American political structures and system. But that wouldn’t be correct. Over seventy seven million Americans voted for this government with at least some understanding what they were voting for, and it’s unclear how much buyers’ remorse there really is out there. Throughout history countries have made choices that, with the benefit of hindsight, look suicidal. Why should America be an exception?

There is one other part of this that should concern people greatly. Of late Donald Trump’s statements have been particularly incoherent and inconsistent. It seems he is increasingly a narcissistic ego stuck in an eighty year old body and mind. This then begs the question who is in charge? Who is charting this disastrous course? Some have described Stephen Miller as the brains of the government and I do wonder whether he and a small coterie of invisible others are taking America and the world down this path to perdition.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the follow button that appears at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

“Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world” as Pierre Poilievre Bends his Knee to the Gilded Throne

On January 3 U.S. Special Forces entered the capital of Venezuela, Caracas, and captured Venezuelan President, Nicolas Maduro and his wife, taking them to the United States where they stand charged with narco terrorism. Although there were no U.S. casualties in the operation, at least 80 people died. Most would agree Nicolas Maduro and his government were/are an abomination that violates the values that most of us in democracies hold dear. His removal might ultimately be good for the Venezuelan people but the early signals are not encouraging.

Within hours of the American intervention Canadian Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre issued a statement praising Maduro’s capture and removal. Why the Leader of the Opposition in Canada felt it appropriate to issue this statement at that time is unclear but, if nothing else, it should remind Canadians why this man should never wear the mantle of Prime Minister.

Aside from the impropriety of speaking on behalf of Canadians to, I suspect, a mostly American audience, his rush to judgement ignored the obvious questions about legality and, perhaps most concerning, what comes next for Venezuela and the world. Shortly after his statement Donald Trump was announcing America would control Venezuela for the forseeable future and, perhaps most surprising, would work with the the current government in Caracas, the same goverment that was roundly rejected by the Venezuelan people in the last election and that has turned the once prosperous country into a police state and economic basket case causing over eight million of its citizens to flee as refugees to surrounding countries, the United States and Canada. And, in a remarkably candid comment, Donald Trump made it clear America’s interests are with Venezuelan oil, not the well being of its people or their right to live in a free and democratic society. In fact, Trump dismissed the opposition leader, Maria Corina Machada as “a nice lady but without the support of the Venezuelan people” despite her party gaining two thirds of the vote in the last election. And yet Pierre Poilievre, instead of waiting for the full facts to become known, or for the official comment from the Canadian government, leapt in feet first and is now left supporting gunboat diplomacy not seen in this hemisphere since the 1970’s.

But there’s more. Much more. Only days before the Venezuelan intervention, America issued a new foreign policy doctrine, one that built on the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 that asserted American hegemony over the western hemisphere, including Canada. Yes you heard that right, including Canada. And right on cue Donald Trump and his advisors were threatening to intervene in Colombia and Mexico, while renewing their claim to Greenland. Suddenly it’s not far fetched to envision a scenario where America uses its military to threaten Canada if it doesn’t fall in line behind American interests. And that is the key term “American interests”. Both Donald Trump and his advisors and Cabinet secretaries have been clear there main, if not only, objective is to pursue American security and economic interests without regard for the interests of smaller nations. On its face this doesn’t sound particularly radical except on closer examination it reflects a world view not of alliances and cooperation but of domination. As many have already observed this is a return to the world of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries where the words of the ancient Greek historian, Thurcydides, that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” described a world order of empire and conflict that ultimately led to two world wars that cost nearly one hundred million lives.

So, without regard for what America’s actions and doctrine mean for Canada, the Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition becomes a cheer leader for American intervention in Venezuela and logically any other country that seems to be drifting from American hegemony. Canadians should take note.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that appears on the lower right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

The “Truth and Reconciliation” Dead End

It was only a matter of time. The moment when the feel good, wishy washy proclamations and promises were going to bump up against the hard realities of Canada today.

Canada has a population of approximately 42 million, of which slightly more than 1.8 million are indigenous, or about five percent. The rest are either recent immigrants or descendants of Europeans and later Asians who started migrating to what is now called Canada in the sixteenth century. The indigenous societies they encountered were technologically much less advanced than those of the Europeans or Asians, some more so than others. Some, the tribes of the west coast, for example, were relatively sedentary with established villages and hierarchies, while others like the tribes of the prairies, existed in migrating, hunter/gatherer groups. None could withstand the encroachment of the Europeans.

This is the point where most people will pause to assure everyone they are deeply committed to reconciliation with aboriginal peoples, and profoundly regret the countless terrible things inflicted on them by the newer settlers and their descendants. I will not. All those mostly empty words do is reinforce the lazy narrative that everything aboriginal is good and everything else, bad. That most feel this reflects the coercive forces that have shaped this debate in Canada. Step even a little over that line and you’ll be accused of racism or, that newest of online charges, “denialism”.

What happened to aboriginal peoples in Canada replicated what has happened all over the world since time immemorial. Populations move. Borders shift. People get displaced or absorbed. Sometimes it is peaceful but usually there is conflict with the more advanced groupings dominating. I’m sure my Celtic ancestors were displaced multiple times as more powerful groups invaded and occupied the British Isles but it would be absurd for me to demand reparations now from the United Kingdom. And yet here we are in Canada. In fact, it’s certain indigenous people did not all arrive at one time, in one group. Given they eventually populated both South and North American continents from top to bottom, some obviously arrived much earlier than others and, if human history is any guide, the newcomers displaced the earlier settlers as they moved across the continents. So who amongst aboriginal North and South Americans was first and, if that could be determined, do they have superior claims to all others?

Under the disastrous leadership of Justin Trudeau Canada cast itself as somehow different from every other place on earth throughout human history, posing as more virtuous, more just, more feminist, and oh so sorry for the litany of supposed wrongs committed by our European settler forefathers and mothers against a seemingly endless list of offended or “harmed” people. It seemed a month didn’t go by when we weren’t apologizing to some group or other about something; that the Canadian flag was at half mast, and that the steady drumbeat of shame was beaten into us. Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa. Churches were burned. Statues toppled. Streets and towns renamed. Charges of genocide, not just cultural by the way, were hurled at Canada from around the world as the the Canadian government hid its face in shame or worse, pled guilty. Not surprisingly, pretty soon the very idea of Canada, this remarkably successful country, was devalued, so much so that some preciously referred to it as “so called Canada” while others tried to rewrite the national anthem so it too would reflect our perfidy and shame. A hell of a way to build and unite a country.

In this environment it’s not surprising that the claims by indigenous Canadians should take first place as an original sin that marked the dark path that lay ahead. Canadian governments have been trying to address the role of indigenous people in a modern nation state since before Confederation. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems most of those efforts were misguided and certainly unsuccessful. That’s clear even without assigning dark motives to early Canadians. The modern context begins in 1982 when Pierre Trudeau’s government patriated the constitution from the United Kingdom and added the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. The new constitution, at Section 25, affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights for indigenous Canadians including Metis. It also shelters those rights from diminishment through the Charter rights of other Canadians. The meaning of this clause was then left to the courts to determine. That was subsequently further constrained by Canada’s adoption of the “United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples”. So, bit by bit, Canadian Liberal and Conservative governments, as well as NDP provincial governments, entangled the country in a web of uncertainty and conflict, all the time engaging in magical thinking that somehow it would all work out.

On August 8 B.C. Supreme Court Justice Barbara Young issued a ruling in the claim by the Cowichan Nation that found it had established aboriginal title to more than 5.7 kilometers of land along the banks of the Fraser River in the city of Richmond, some of which is privately held either by businesses or homeowners. It found public and private titles to the land were “defective” and infringed on the Cowichan title. The ruling has triggered a tsunami of outrage against the judge, great anxiety for the current landowners, and appeals by the City of Richmond, the province of British Columbia, the Government of Canada, the local port authority and one other aboriginal group with a competing land claim. I don’t know whether the outrage and shock is genuine or political theatre because it’s been blindingly obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the competing claims that it was going to come to this somewhere. This follows the provincial government voluntarily ceding full control of Haida gwaii to the Haida despite there being privately owned lands on the archipelago. In both cases the native bands have offered assurances they will not interfere in the private holdings but, frankly, that’s only good until they change their minds. Even if they don’t, the possiblity significantly undermines the value of those properties.

None of this happened in a vacuum. The politicans, having set the table over the decades, then stood back as the courts did what they were expected to do: interpret, define and refine the ambiguities in the laws. I don’t fault the judge in the Cowichan ruling. She simply considered the evidence, the law and the precedents and then issued the inevitable outcome. If it hadn’t happened in Richmond it would certainly have happened elsewhere, and soon, given other cases before the courts in B.C.

So, as a result of colossal mismanagement by Canada’s political leaders we now live in an Alice in Wonderland world where two contradictory things are held to be somehow magically consistent. They are not. And many have been complicit. I don’t remember when it became compulsory for every public gathering to begin with an acknowledgement it was taking place on “unceded native land”. Or when many events were preceded by some kind of drum and/or smoke ceremony. Or when aboriginal offenders were given lighter sentences even if they were chronic and violent offenders. Or when every development proposal was subject to endless conflict over claims by indigenous groups that they had to consent before it could proceed. And on that issue we have yet another example of the ambiguous/magical thinking of our political leaders as they created the laws. Some, although fewer and fewer, are willing to stand up and say there is nothing in the constitution that requires consent by native groups before developments can proceed. But there is the need to consult and the courts have added layer upon layer to that process until many, perhaps most, indigenous Canadians believe they have the right of veto. And even when the courts find otherwise in a particular case some engage in acts of civil disobediance and sabotage to block or slow the process.

This is no way to run a country. Five percent of the population cannot trump the rights and interests of the other ninety five percent. I understand indigenous Canadians have not been able to fully partiticipate in the success of this country and I fully support initiatives that will help them do so in the future, initiatives such as ownership of resource projects or developments on their urban lands. But that is a far cry from pouring billions of dollars into a system that infantilizes and traps them. The simple fact is Canada needs to go back to square one on this issue and that may mean amending Section 25 of the constitution as well as repudiating some of the vacuous commitments previous federal, provincial and municipal governments have made. As the Cowichan ruling has shown, a tiger is awakening and it’s the vast majority of the Canadian public, and it will demand radical remedial action on how we all relate to indigenous Canadians. This could get very nasty. Let’s see if any of our politcal leaders have the cojones to lead.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that appears at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

Is There Any Point in Negotiating With Trumps America?

I spent the better part of fifty years leading negotiations, resulting in dozens, if not more, agreements. None of them ended in failure or even a rejected agreement once a settlement was reached at the bargaining table. There were two immutable conditions underpinning those negotiations: both parties had an interest in reaching an agreement; and certainty that, once reached, an agreement would be honoured even when the outcomes might prove different from what was originally contemplated. The other significant element was that the parties had continuing relationships that predated the agreements and would continue after. This experience makes it particularly frustrating for me when I encounter other types of negotiations, for example when I’m trying to buy a car and the salesperson always goes upstairs with what I think has been agreed to only to regretfully inform me that someone in higher authority has said “no” and I will have to increase my offer. Same thing selling or buying real estate. Part of me always feels the other party is bargaining in bad faith when, in fact, I’m engaged in a type of negotiation completely different from what I’m most familiar with. It’s important to keep this in mind when confronted with other, unconventional negotiating styles such as that of the U.S. government today, and not to react in anything but a calm and thoughtful way. The simple fact is they will do what they will do to paraphrase an old negotiating colleague of mine and there’s very little we can do to control that. We must continuously focus on what we can control, a message the Prime Minister is wisely repeating over and over.

Negotiations between the U.S. and Canada are currently at an impasse because of Donald Trump’s tantrum over an Ontario ad that played in America and that quoted President Ronald Reagan decrying the use of tariffs. At least that’s the official version although it really doesn’t hold water and it’s more likely the Americans were simply looking for an excuse to stop the negotiations to bring more pressure to bear on Canada. This “pause” is a good time for Canada to consider whether there’s any point in pursuing an agreement at all with America today? I raise this as someone who has supported closer economic integration between Canada and the U.S. since the 1960’s with the then Canada/U.S. Auto Pact. With the benefit of hindsight all the free trade agreements that followed led Canada into an increasingly vulnerable position until we find ourselves where we are today. They were a mistake. John Turner was right and Brian Mulroney was wrong.

These negotiations should mostly fit in the mold of the negotiations I’ve engaged in so the first task is to see whether the underlying conditions for agreement exist now or in the future? Do the Americans believe it is in their best interest to reach an agreement with Canada? To listen to the President and some of his Cabinet, it would seem the answer is “no”, at least for any agreement that would do anything other than impose greater disadvantages upon Canada. Many will say “well, they don’t really mean what they’re saying” but, after nine months of this administration, is that really credible? Yes, the Americans need Canada for many things including oil, potash, steel, lumber and aluminum but there are powerful lobbies in America where the costs of forgoing at least the steel, lumber and aluminum are outweighed by the increased profits resulting from the tariffs for those vested interests. In other words, the American people be damned as long as the select industries can increase their wealth even if it means increased costs for American consumers.

But, quite apart from what Canadians may believe to be in America’s best interests, it’s been my experience to usually believe what the other side is saying even when it seems to contradict common sense or known facts. It’s their beliefs that count, nothing more. Of course that encounters push back when dealing with a serial liar which President Trump has proven to be but, hidden in whatever obfuscation he’s launching on any given day, there are surely grains of evidence of what’s really going on.

There is one area where the Americans have been consistent and where they are proceeding to strip Canada of its industrial capacity and that’s the auto industry. This strikes close to home for me. I worked for the UAW in Windsor/Detroit in 1971, just a few years after the Canada/US auto pact had been agreed to and as the countries’ two auto industries were moving to full integration in response to what was considered an existential threat from Japanese, and to a lesser extent, German auto makers. And that’s why today’s North American auto industry is so closely integrated and why Donald Trump’s dismantling of that, complete with tariff walls and eschewing the move to electric vehicles, is going to leave that industry a stranded albatross that is increasingly uncompetitive and dying. It will be rough, but Canada must use this moment to find new auto maker partners and position itself as a global leader in new automobile technologies. The alternative is a complete hollowing out of Canada’s auto industry, one that goes back a century, with dire negative economic consequences for communities in southern Ontario and Quebec.

Aside from autos, the tariffs are weighing heavily on softwood lumber in B.C., Quebec and the Maritimes. Aluminum tariffs are negatively impacting Quebec and B.C. while the steel tariffs are mostly affecting Ontario. In other words, vast areas of Canada are having economic warfare waged against them and there’s little reason to think any agreement will result in reliable relief.

So, I return to the question: do the Americans want an agreement with Canada? At this point I think the answer is probably “no” and that may also apply to the renewal of the Canada/US/Mexico free trade agreement. And it doesn’t matter what we think should be in their best interests or that they are mistaken. All that matters at this moment is what they believe. So, for starters, one of the two fundamental anchors for any successful negotiation is missing.

And that brings me to the second anchor. Even if there is some renewed interest from the Americans, can we ever truly believe they will honour any agreement they enter into? What is almost certain is that, after one too many Big Macs, Donald Trump will wake up in the middle of the night, turn on his computer and wreck chaos across the agreement landscape. He’s already done so repeatedly and specifically with Canada with his so-called fentanyl tariffs and there is no reason to believe he’s going to change in the final three years of his Presidency.

Just to complicate the conversation further, it’s clear the tariff stick is not just going to be used to address trade issues. Time and again, Trump is using it to meddle in other countries’ internal affairs, including Canada’s. We’ve already blinked once, on the digital services tax, so why wouldn’t he use it over and over again to influence Canadian domestic decisions. In fact, he already has with the Ontario anti tariff ads. This, of course, pales in comparison to what he’s doing tariffing Brazil because it has the temerity to prosecute its former President for attempting to foment a military coup after his election defeat, or his threatened tariffs agains Columbia after its President expressed concern over the bombing of boats in the Caribbean and Pacific.

So, what does Canada do now? Well, much of what it is already doing, although with a better understanding there may never be agreements with this administration and we can survive that. In negotiations theory we use a term “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement”, or “BATNA” which basically means what it says. It’s one of the basic tools in preparing for and conducting a negotiation. It allows for a true comparison of any agreement on offer. Canada’s BATNA right now is pretty much what the Canadian government is doing. Respond to the threats and tantrums from down south with a firm “we’re ready to talk when the Americans are”, while getting on with the serious business of re-orienting Canada’s economy away from one dependent upon free trade with the United States. There will be increasing economic pain and it won’t be shared equally across the country but the federal and provincial governments can take steps to mitigate it and, most importantly, to ensure the rise of a new industrial base with displaced workers given first shot at participating in it.

Canada is a very special place and it’s worth doing whatever is necessary to ensure it endures and prospers. It’s just possible in ten years we may look back and thank Donald Trump for waking us up and starting us on yet another journey of nation building in The True North Strong and Free.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” box that will appear at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

Defending Canada

For most of the two centuries the land now known as Canada was occupied by Europeans it had few serious threats to its independence and integrity. It was surrounded by oceans on three sides and a mostly benign powerful neighbour to its south. For the first century and a half it was a member of the most powerful empire on earth which protected it from the predations of its southern neighbour as it came into its own as a super power. For the past eighty years that super power has provided a security blanket as both Canada and the United States shared responsibility for the protection of the continent.

And then everything changed. Military technology advanced so the oceans no longer provide the protective moates they once did; global warming is changing the Arctic Ocean so the Northwest Passage is navigable for significant parts of the year and, most surprising, the seemingly benign democratic neighbour to our south turned into something entirely different, openly threatening to absorb Canada and, at a minimum, retreating from its global role with NATO securing the peace and prosperity of the western style democracies.

And while these seismic changes were underway other developments, some partly fueled by them, began as Russia invaded Ukraine, while, at the same time, engaging in a massive buildup of its military in the arctic; China pronounced itself a “near arctic” nation intending to expand its “silk road” to include an arctic silk road that would, at a minimum, pass very close to Canada’s northern territory; all while other state actors engage in undercover activities to undermine Canada’s unity, integrity and sovereignty.

Canada has never been so vulnerable and alone. Our vaunted NATO and NORAD alliances all depended on a reliable and stable America, something that is increasingly missing. And although our European and major Commonweath allies remain, they have their hands full dealing with more immediate threats to their own sovereignty. So what can Canada do in this time of peril to ensure its long term survival and prosperity?

Prime Minister Carney was elected primarily because a majority of Canadians believed he was the best qualified to handle the current crisis, and his initial moves justify that confidence. Expanding and diversifying our trading relationships, massively increasing spending on defence, eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, and building generation defining projects of national importance all fit well into a longer term strategy to secure Canada. The more immediate challenge, however, is the short to medium term, especially when it comes to protecting Canada militarily. Purchasing a new fleet of submarines, purchasing a new fleet of fighter jets, enhancing our ability to fight a war with drones, expanding the armed forces…all good and necessary but almost all requiring years before they have any measurable impact on how we can defend outselves. But what if the unthinkable happens? What if Donald Trump’s America decides it should annex Alberta (with the assistance of the Quislings there asking for just that)? What if China decides to sail regularly through the Northwest Passage which even the United States doesn’t recognize as Canadian territorial water? What if, after the war in Ukraine winds down, Vladimir Putin decides to stretch his arctic muscles by occupying part of Canada’s arctic (all it would take initially is some isolated island…one of those places the appeasers amongst us would argue is not worth defending)? What if? What if? All unthinkable until it isn’t.

Finland, which has a long history of fending off invasions by the Russians, has what is called a “Total Defence” and it involves all parts of government and society planning and acting on defence. It expects all parts of society and citizens to participate in resisting an invader. I’ve heard suggestions Canada should adopt a similar model and, while some version of it might be helpful here, given Canada’s enormous size and scattered and diverse population, I suspect it would not be nearly as effective as in a small country with a homogeneous population and a long history of defending itself against larger aggressors.

There is another option, one that could be implemented fairly quickly and one that, given the recent history of world conflict, would be most effective in deterring open aggression against Canada: acquiring nuclear weapons. My younger self would have been appalled to see me writing these words but then he lived in a very different and more stable world.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power in the world after Russia and the United States. It decided to go non nuclear and in 1974 entered into an agreement with Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom that guaranteed its territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. The agreement was known as the Budapest Memorandum. With the benefit of hindsight, that was a foolish move because twenty years later Russia began its campaign of territorial expansion into Ukraine by occupying Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. In 2022 Russia launched a full scale invasion, starting the bloody war that continues to this day. It’s unlikely Russia would have done so if Ukraine had the ability to respond with nuclear weapons.

Similarly, the rogue state in North Korea would not have survived, or at least been able to assault its neighbours and generally destabilize the region, had it not had nuclear weapons. And then there’s the state of Israel that has never confirmed it has nuclear weapons but most likely does. This strategic ambiguity has been an effective deterrent for its hostile neighbours as one by one they’ve abandoned their goal of destroying Israel.

Growing up in the fifties and sixties in Canada we were told Canada had the know how, the facilities and the natural resources to manufacture nuclear weapons but chose not to out of a concern for nuclear proliferation. Looking back it strikes me as a bit hypocritical as we were secure under the American nuclear umbrella and so could afford a holier than thou attitude towards the nuclear powers. I even remember the turmoil that ultimately cost Prime Minister John Diefenbaker his government when the Americans asked to place nuclear missiles on Canadian soil. But so much has changed since then and, especially, most recently. Not only can we not rely on the Americans to protect us from overseas aggression but we have to confront the sad reality that America itself now poses a threat to Canada’s territorial integrity for the first time since the War of 1812. And even if America doesn’t directly threaten Canada’s sovereignty, its own internal divisions, now playing out in ever more alarming ways, undermines any confidence we can have in that alliance.

There is only one way for forty million Canadians to defend the territorial integrity of the second largest country on earth and that is for Canada to quickly acquire a nuclear force capable of dissuading would be aggressors, including both tactical and conventional weapons. It should be done clandestinely to prevent pre-emptive actions by potential enemies and actions by those fighting nuclear proliferation. And the fleet of submarines Canada is acquiring should be capable of firing ballistic missiles.

I understand how this goes against the grain of what many of us have been raised to understand as a core Canadian value. But weighed against the threats and the alternatives, it must be done. Alternatively we passively accept the harsh truth of Thucydides that the strong do what they do and the weak accept what they must. That is not the future I want for Canada.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the follow button that will appear at the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Is Mark Carney Failing?

On April 28 Canadians went to the polls and gave the Liberal government a new mandate, their fourth in a row. The election was the culmination of one of the most dramatic political comebacks in Canadian history where the government turned a more than twenty percent polling deficit against the opposition Conservatives into a near majority government.

It is accepted political wisdom this would not have happened had it not been for Donald Trump and his threats to Canadian sovereignty and economic well being. While that was almost certainly true, there were other factors at play too, factors without which it seems likely the Conservatives would have triumphed. First of these was the Conservative leader, Pierre Poillievre who, over his twenty plus years in Parliament developed an image as a scrapper who was rather unpleasant and whose trademark became the one line rhyming jingos he and his core supporters seemed to enjoy but most other Canadians viewed with distaste. That, combined with suspicions he was too similar to the marauder down south, and his penchant for supporting actions by his supporters like the Truckers’ Convoy in Ottawa and Alberta, all contributed to a trust deficit just waiting to be exploited. His saviour was the then Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, who, after nearly ten years of endlessly performative politics was long past his “best by” date.

And that’s when the Liberal Party showed yet again why it is only slightly jokingly referred to as “Canada’s Natural Governing Party”. In what seemed like an impossibly short time, Trudeau was out and Mark Carney was in. The sigh of relief from Canadian voters, myself included, was almost audible as the appalling choice we’d been facing was removed. We no longer had to choose between two different, but equally unappealing, candidates at this moment of national crisis. There was an adult on offer and millions of Canadians voted for him. Within weeks of being chosen party leader, Mark Carney was elected Prime Minister, missing the holy grail of Canadian politics, a majority in Parliament, by just two seats.

The core theme of Mark Carney’s election campaign was that he was the best candidate to deal with the predations from the south. In the slogans of the campaign he was the “elbows up” candidate, the one who promised a strong and direct response to American economic aggression. This was accompanied by full sentences where we were told our relationship with America had fundamentally changed and that Canada’s response must operate on several levels at once, including finding new trading partners, breaking down inter provincial trade barriers, and significantly strengthening our armed forces, all while trying to maneuver through the chaotic and constantly changing political climate in Washington.

We just passed the one hundred day mark since the Carney government was sworn in and the vultures are beginning to circle, looking for signs of weakness or failure where they can attack. They point to a series of moves by the government that don’t seem consistent with “elbows up”, moves like suspending the imminent digital services tax and eliminating many of the counter tariffs Canada had placed on American goods in response to its first tranche of tariffs on Canada. And in the areas where the counter tariffs remain, particularly on steel, aluminum and automobiles, they remain at half the level of the American tariffs they are responding to. None of these moves has resulted in any obvious American reciprocal action except perhaps vague agreements to continue talking. At the same time the Canadian economy is teetering closer and closer to a recession as the impact of the American tariffs affect employment, spending and government revenues. While this is happening Prime Minister Carney and his government seem to be going out of their way to flatter and coddle the President.

On the other hand, in its first one hundred days the government has done some of the things that were in its election platform. It has passed legislation aimed at eliminating federal interprovincial tariffs, while actively encouraging the provinces to do likewise. It has passed a “One Canadian Economy Act” that aims to significantly reduce the time necessary for approvals of projects that are deemed in the national interest. It has created an office of Major Projects and appointed an experienced businesswoman to head it while, simultaneously, asking provincial and territorial governments to identify projects that might qualify to be accelerated. It has implemented a middle class tax cut. It has committed to increase spending on defence, first by two percent and then by a further three percent, as required by NATO. It has increased pay for members of the Canadian armed forces and is moving rapidly to purchase a new and greatly expanded fleet of submarines. Prime Minister Carney has held meetings with European leaders and is moving to integrate Canada’s weapons procurement with that of its European allies.

So what is going on?

Admittedly, I bring a perspective tempered by nearly half a century of negotiating contracts with governments, unions and other organizations so I am more inclined than others might be to wait and see and to trust the silence as a sign some progress is being made in negotiations with the Americans. I remember negotiating quietly while those on the outside were condemning our lack of progress, or our lack of transparency, or, indeed, our competence. In the end they were shown to be completely ill informed as all of the resulting agreements were ratified and accepted, often with great enthusiam. So, for starters, I don’t find it significant that there is very little information coming out and, in fact, suspect that is a sign progress is being made. If they were going nowhere we would hear about it.

We should remember the Prime Minister has been clear that Canada will not sign just any agreement with the Americans, unlike some other countries who seem to have done just that. The latest news that the negotiators are working on smaller, sectoral agreements makes perfect sense and is likely the best that can be achieved outside of the CUSMA renewal negotiations.

It also makes sense that the government re-engage with the Chinese and the Indians despite the angry pressure from their Canadian diasporas, something that is underway. We may not like the way they run their countries or act on the world stage but a trading country like Canada cannot ignore them, particularly when our closest ally and trading partner has gone rogue. And that’s the world we now live in.

Parliament is resuming in two weeks and a budget will be tabled shortly thereafter. That’s likely when the rubber hits the road and we can make a better assessment of how the man we elected to be Prime Minister is doing. When I voted for Mark Carney I was not voting for a Rambo who would charge wildly against the Americans. I voted for someone who I believed had the temperament, intelligence, demeanour and experience to lead Canada through a very difficult time, in other words, a man with the characteristics of our very best Prime Ministers. What’s more, I understood the “elbows up” part of his campaign was only part of the arsenal we would have to employ to emerge from this crisis intact and prosperous.

I have no doubt the most difficult challenges still lie in front of him, whether the continuing truculent and unpredictable America; the opposition from all the vested interests that rise up to defeat most nation building projects in Canada; the continuing slowdown of the economy as the trade war takes its toll or, as Prime Minister Harold MacMillan of Great Britain put it “events dear boy, events”. But so far I think he’s doing just fine, showing an adept and steady hand on the tiller as we navigate these extraordinartily treacherous waters.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that appears on the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.