How Do We Negotiate With an Insecure, Childish Bully?

On July 20 Donald Trump signed three Executive Orders that imposed 50% tariffs on a wide range of Canadian imports, effective August 13. Like his earlier tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles, they are a clear violation of the Canada/U.S./Mexico trade agreement he signed in his first term. It seems the United States signature on agreements, or its other commitments, are now worthless which begs the question “should we even try to negotiate agreements when we know America will abrogate them on a whim?”. Fair question, but I think the best course is to try to reach agreement even though we know it may not last (but then, neither will Donald Trump).

So, if we are to negotiate, how do we do so with the current occupant of the Oval Office? In my nearly fifty years negotiating agreements I’ve certainly encountered people on the other side who were impossible to deal with but that could be addressed by having them removed. No such option is available when the impossible person is the President of the United States.

The place to start is in our own heads. Prime Minister Carney gets it right when he says we can’t control what the other side does so we should concentrate on what we can do. Confronted with threats from the other side, an old colleague of mine used to say “you will do what you will do”, with the implication he would respond accordingly. In my experience, the worst threat is far more effective as a threat than when it becomes an action with all its messy detail. That’s as true with a strike threat, a lockout threat or some other “nuclear” threat.

The second thing to do is stop feeding the beast. Piecemeal concessions do nothing except wet the appetite for more. Canada tried that with the digital services tax and received nothing in return. In fact the American attitude is best encapsulated in the recent comments by their lead negotiator who said America was not giving Canada credit for reversing bad policies. I suspect the decision was made to give the concession because it appeared an agreement on tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles was imminent, before it wasn’t as Trump had yet another temper tantrum. Either way, no more individual concessions, particularly on those things the U.S. is complaining about (e.g. American liquor off the shelves). Those complaints tell us the pressure is working and shouldn’t be given up until everything is settled. It would help at this moment if Alberta and Saskatchewan joined the rest of Canada and resumed their boycotts of American liquor as well.

Third, take the position that nothing is settled until everything is. A useful tool in this approach is what we used to call package bargaining. While not something to use early in negotiations, once the formalities are over and the parties’ positions clarified, it is a good way to signal areas of possible compromise with linkages to what Canada needs. The standard is either accept the whole package or none of it is on offer. Usually the other side will respond with a package as well.

Finally, prepare for the worst while working for the best. In other words, take seriously the U.S. announcement it will apply 50% tariffs mid August, while still trying to reach a comprehensive agreement. Prepare for the worst by gaming various scenarios for Canada’s response. Do we introduce retaliatory tariffs? Do we find ways to make those products America can’t do without more expensive? Do we limit the export of some or all of those products? What is the likely American response if we do any of these things and can we manage it? And while we’re doing that, reveal nothing. Prime Minister Carney has struck the right note when he says if the tariffs come into effect “nothing is off the table”.

So, if we follow this playbook, will it succeed? In most negotiations the balance would say “yes” but, unfortunately, this is not a regular negotiation. We are dealing with a narcissistic bully whose impulses can upend negotiations at any moment (as we saw with the imminent agreement on steel, aluminum and automobiles) and that may well happen again. We cannot assume with any certainty the American approach is part of some grand strategy because we see over and over again, all around the world, it depends on the mercurial, needy temperament of the President that can upend agreements and relationships for no obvious reason except his need to assert dominance.

So, Canada, keep calm and carry on. We will outlast him.

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 lower right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

This blog didn’t publish/post properly so I am re-posting it.

The Canadian Museum of Human Rights Misstep Over Its Nakba Exhibit

The Canadian Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg is engulfed by controversy surrounding its current exhibit: “Palestine Uprooted: Nakba Past and Present” that focuses on the displacement of Palestinians with the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Much of what is being said online is full of sound and fury with seemingly little understanding of the historical facts behind the Nakba.

With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War the League of Nations granted a British mandate over the territory generally referred to as Palestine that included modern day Jordan and extended to the Mediterranean in the west and stretched from Egypt to Syria in the south and north. At that point there was no country called “Palestine” and there were competing claims to the territory, particularly between Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The mandate required the British to facilitate the creation of a Jewish homeland in the region while protecting the rights of the non Jewish inhabitants. The British were unable to reconcile the competing communities and, in 1947, turned the administration of the region over to the newly created United Nations. In November, 1947, the UN voted to partition the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states. The British mandate formally ended on May 15, 1948 and the surrounding Arab states, Transjordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt, immediately invaded the nascent State of Israel expecting to kill it in its infancy. They encountered much stiffer resistance than expected and the war ended in 1949 with an armistice that was essentially an Israeli victory.

During the war many of the Arab residents of the new state of Israel either fled the conflict or were driven out by the Israelis. It is estimated somewhere between 700,000 and 800,000 were so displaced. Later, Palestinians referred to this as “the Nakba” which, in Arabic, means “disaster” or “catastrophe”. At the same time, Jews who were residents of the Muslim countries across the Maghrib and the Middle East were similarly displaced from homelands they had occupied for centuries or, in some cases, millennia. It’s estimated somewhere between 850,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were so displaced. Both sides suffered enormous hardship but what happened next is key to understanding the current conflict.

Approximately 650,000 of the Jewish refugees settled in the new state of Israel where they became citizens and full participants in society. The rest immigrated to France, the United States and Canada where, again, they became citizens and fully participating members of those countries. The Palestinians were not so fortunate. None of the surrounding Arab and/or Muslim states welcomed them into their folds and there were two reasons for this: first, those countries themselves were often coalitions of disparate ethnic and confessional peoples, some of which had been arbitrarily cobbled together by exiting colonial powers, and there was, perhaps legitimate, fear that allowing a huge infusion of mostly Muslim Arabs might destabilize them. The second reason is more problematic. Until very recently the North African and Middle Eastern nations surrounding Israel refused to recognize it and had as their explicit policy supporting the genocide of the Israeli population, usually couched in the language of “driving them into the sea”, and having a permanent and hate filled Palestinian population surrounding Israel and demanding a “right of return” to the land now occupied by Israel furthered that narrative. So, the Palestinians found themselves dumped into refugee camps stretching from southern Lebanon through Jordan to Gaza and Egypt. In none of those countries were they welcomed as new citizens and supported in building new lives, at least until fairly recently. Instead, they were abandoned to a meagre existence, where festering ancient hatreds would grow and spread.

At least as much blame for the Palestinians’ initial plight lies with the Arab and other Muslim nations that surround Israel as it does with Israel itself. In fact, given the facts on the ground in 1948, most of the blame lies with those countries. That has shifted with the actions of the current Israeli government and the settler movement that, increasingly, is trying to make the creation of a Palestinian homeland in the region impossible.

Which brings us back to the Nakba exhibit at the Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg. I have not seen the exhibit but I have read the responses on both sides of the debate and it seems to me that, at a time of rising antisemitism in the world and in Canada, it would only make sense that the broader historical record was displayed and not just that of the Palestinians. History is complicated and seldom lends itself to the simplicity of a placard or the certainty of black and white. That is certainly the case here and the Museum has missed an opportunity to advance understanding while being tone deaf to the legitimate fears its actions will only further the divisions that are all over this issue.

Just sayin

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

Oily Alberta

Alberta Premier, Danielle Smith, has announced her government will hold a referendum on whether Albertans wish to remain in Canada or, instead, want the provincial government to proceed with a “binding” referendum on the question. In other words, she announced a referendum on whether or not to hold a referendum. This was in response to the courts striking down a petition for a referendum because the government had failed to consult native bands, many of whom have treaties with Canada that predate the creation of the province of Alberta in 1905. As if this wasn’t confusing enough, Smith cited the dueling petitions on the subject as justification for this move, claiming they showed that over 700,000 Albertans wanted a referendum. Nice try, but that isn’t what they say at all. Of the 700,000, 400,000 were on a petition supporting Canadian unity in response to that being circulated by the separatists. It’s no leap to say that most, if not all of the 700,000, want nothing to do with a referendum, yet, in her press conference, Smith doggedly kept insisting they, along with the 300,000 on the separatist petition, did. Despite it being glaringly obvious this was wrong, she stuck to her message with all the determination of a used car salesman. So, it seems Alberta is heading for a referendum in October during which the rest of the country is focussing on free trade negotiations with America and Mexico in the context of Donald Trump’s relentless trade war against Canada.

This has everything to do with Smith’s survival as Premier. It is no secret that a majority of members of her United Conservative Party (“UCP”) support separation, including for some, absorption into the United States. It’s also a fact that some of the separatist leaders played a significant role in getting Smith chosen as UCP leader and Premier after pushing her predecessor, Jason Kenney, out. Some are publicly calling for the same to be done to her now, encouraging separatists to join the UCP, take over constituency organizations, and give her the boot too. This despite her plan to hold a referendum on separatism no matter how it is cloaked to circumvent the finding of the courts. She is also challenging the court’s finding on the original separatist petition.

Although Smith keeps claiming her move is democratic, it is not. The UCP didn’t campaign on separation or even holding a referendum in Alberta’s last election. And yet here we are. Alberta effectively has a separatist government, or at least one beholden to separatists who control the governing political party, and clearly its survival is its top priority regardless of the cost to Albertans or to Canada. This is a selfish and deeply disloyal thing to do but, given her and her government’s track record, why are we surprised?

Premier Smith claims this is an opportunity to lay the separatist question to rest “once and for all”. But is it? Does anyone really believe that if the separatists get a significant share of the vote they are just going to fold their tent and go away? Of course they won’t, just as separatists in Quebec continue despite repeated defeats at the ballot box. All the vote will do is give more oxygen to those Albertans who, for all their misguided reasons, want to destroy Canada. And that will be Danielle Smith’s legacy.

This is occurring against the backdrop of serious efforts by Prime Minister Carney to right previous wrongs done to Alberta, not because of the separatist threat but because it is part of his nation building agenda in response to the threats from the United States. And the centrepiece of this initiative is the building of another oil pipeline from Alberta to tidewater on the west coast. For the first time in a very long time there is a government in Ottawa that is actively supporting a pipeline with the goal of getting “shovels in the ground” by September 2027.

But wait. How can that happen when, at the same time, there is a formal push to remove Alberta from Canada? No matter how remote the possibility of separatist success, the very possibility of a pipeline from a non Canadian Alberta across British Columbia changes all of the equations. And until it is firmly and finally settled, all bets are off.

The plan is for Alberta to submit a plan for a pipeline to the Major Projects Office by the first of July, with it then being identified as a project of such national importance that it is expedited in all possible ways. Surely that designation can’t happen with the separatist threat hanging over it. At a minimum, everything should freeze until the October referendum is concluded and, asssuming the answer is some how definitive enough to drive the stake through the separatist monster’s heart, that would still make the timeline unachievable.

The proposed pipeline needs financing and the message from Ottawa is that public funds will not be used and that a private company, or companies, must take the lead. One of them, Enbridge, indicated its interest a week or two ago. But, just as Canada should not be making commitments to Alberta until it knows it will remain in Canada, so too private companies should not be making any binding commitments until the matter is settled. Their shareholders require nothing less.

I was born and raised in Alberta, moving to the west coast with my family when I was a teenager. My grandparents homesteaded east of Edmonton at the end of the nineteenth century before Alberta was even a province, and one of my great Aunts founded one of Alberta’s hospitals. They are all buried in a tiny prairie cemetary in the middle of the province. I have always cut Alberta slack and sympathized with it when Ottawa has acted in ways that were not in Alberta’s interests. I support building another pipeline and I whole heartedly endorse Mark Carney’s efforts to do so quickly but that doesn’t mean I can turn a blind eye to the extraordinary lack of statesmanship coming from Edmonton or the threat it poses to the remarkable country that is Canada.

I get it Albertans. You get to decide. So go ahead with your referendum but in the meantime the rest of us need to focus on nation building projects in provinces we know genuinely want to build and protect this nation. It seems Alberta may not be one of those places.

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.

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.