Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Taking Journalists to Task

Nicholas Kristoff, one of the very few journalists who has covered Darfur throughout the crisis, takes the media to task in his column today for failing to cover the genocide.

One suspects that in a decade or so when we are commemorating Darfur, as we commemorated Rwanda last year, the media will have plenty of criticism for today's political leadership -- as well they should. But they could play a very important role in bringing the world's attention to this tragedy and they have chosen not to.

Monday, July 11, 2005

No one can say it like Hitch

Christopher Hitchens has a brilliant piece on Slate today about what Srebrenica taught us -- or ought to have -- about intervention:

Why did Saddam Hussein, that great lion of the Arab and Muslim world, denounce the American bombing of the Muslim-killing Milosevic? Why did Qaddafi do the same? For the very same reason that Christian fascists in Serbia now denounce the intervention in Iraq: They know that the main foe is the United States and that this fact transcends all the others. There has been a great deal of nonsense published in the last week to the effect that an alliance with the United States can put other countries like Britain in the position of being "targeted." Why deny this? I reflect on what was not done at Srebrenica, and on what ought to have been done in Rwanda, and on what was put off too long with the Taliban and the Baathists, and I think what an honor it is to have such enemies. Co-existence with them is not possible, which is good, because it is not desirable or tolerable, either. The Srebrenica memorial stands as enduring testimony to that inescapable conclusion.

All too often the temptation toward appeasement proves stronger than the will to act. Unfortunately, it is rarely the appeasers who pay the highest price.

Ten Years

Today marks the anniversary of one of the biggest failures of the international community since the founding of the United Nations. Over 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered after Bosnian Serb forces overran the supposed UN safe haven of Srebrenica and the world stood by and did nothing. 50,000 people, including the typical foreign dignitary set, showed up at an event to mark the occasion.

Meanwhile, the commander of European Union forces in Europe insists that they're getting closer to catching Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karazdic who have been indicted in the Hague on charges of genocide for the role they played in this and other attrocities. He pointed out that it's "a bit like getting Osama bin Laden". This would be true if Osama bin Laden lived in Europe and attended public events. On Saturday, a ceremony was held to commemorate Serb victims of the wars in Yugoslavia, and who should be sat in the front row but Mladic and Karazdic (faithful readers of this blog will recall that Ratko is still collecting his pension.) So on what planet this is anything at all like capturing Osama, I am not sure.

The Europeans weren't really all that bothered about the slaugters going on in their own backyard while it was occuring, so there doesn't really seem to be a reason for them to care now that it is over. However, I would appreciate it if they didn't pretend to be trying to do something about bringing genocidal murderers to justice, when those same murderers are practically stood in a public square yelling "nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, you can't catch me".

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Sign me up!

Using Robert Fisk's logic (that people who refuse to bow down to Osama's demands deserve to be attacked) against him, Tim Blair has posted an ultimatum: stop writing articles like the one yesterday or we will steal your shoes.

Very well; if you, Fisk, keep writing this crap, I will employ a squadron of expert footwear bandits to steal all your shoes. Do you know what it’s like to live without shoes, Robert? To wake every morning knowing that the shoes you had the night before are now in a foreign port being busted down to spare parts by criminal gangs operating under the direction of international shoelords?

Having been raised on the wonderful game of Shoe Tag as a child (much like regular tag except instead of just having to touch someone to make them 'it', you steal the shoes from off their feet... I'm not sure what genius thought it up), let me be the first to volunteer to join this squadron.

Fisk's full article is now available on his website if you have the stomach for it.

Friday, July 08, 2005

Could I get a list of what I'm allowed to say?

I would like to preface this by saying I really really hate it when our justice system puts me in the position to have to defend anti-semites.

David Ahenakew was found guilty of thought crime (or as the government likes to call it 'willfully promoting hatred') today, and fined $1,000 for anti-semitic remarks that he made in 2002. I think this man is a despicable piece of filth. I would probably go so far as to say that I hate him, and I would willfully promote you to do so as well. I was very glad to see him stripped of the Order of Canada. I also think that this man is entitled to hate whoever he wants and to share his opinions with whoever he wants.

Yes, he probably hurt some feelings by calling Jews a disease. But I don't think it could reasonably be claimed that he actually put anyone in danger. No decent person wants to hear anyone justify the Holocaust, but this man is not in the position to start rounding people up and moving them to ghettos.

If we have become a state that protects people from having their feelings hurt, perhaps we should start having police monitor the halls in junior high schools across the country, because 12 year olds can really be mean!

Freedom of speech is an integral part of a democratic society. There is no value in what this man said. But where do you draw the line? Who gets to determine which speech is protected and which is not? And do they really think that they have done any good by finding this man guilty of hateful speech? So that now the people who agree with him feel that he is a victim of the state. Racists with a legitimate reason to be angry at the justice system. That's exactly what we need.

Peace in Our Time

The expected response from Robert Fisk today (subscription or access to a university library system required), convinced that if we just give Osama what he wants he'll go away. This totally always works! Britain will leave the Muslim world alone and Osama's followers will stop bombing England.

To go on pretending that Britain's enemies want to destroy 'what we hold dear' encourages racism; what we are confronting here is a specific, direct, centralised attack on London as a result of a 'war on terror' which Lord Blair of Kut al- Amara has locked us into. Just before the US presidential elections, Bin Laden asked: 'Why do we not attack Sweden?'

Lucky Sweden. No Osama bin Laden there. And no Tony Blair.


Yeah, you know who else Sweden didn't take sides against? Hitler. Which was great for Sweden who were free to direct their energies toward finding practical solutions to the world's furniture assembly problems, but if England and the U.S. had had that attitude there'd be no Jews left. And though Osama wouldn't have a problem with that, I have a sense that Adolf would have turned his attentions to the Muslim hordes eventually.

What Robert Fisk fails to explain is what business Iraq is of Osama's. Mecca and Medina I might grant you for the sake of the argument (although not the modern political state of Saudi Arabia). But from what I recall, despite some attempts on Saddam's part to buddy up to the Islamists after the Gulf War, Iraq was a secular state. And it has to be about Iraq, because if this is about Afghanistan then Sweden's in trouble too, because they have forces there as peacekeepers. And I tend to feel that Osama might frown upon that, because helping turn theocracies into democracies would seem to work counter to his goals.

If we're talking not just about Muslim holy sites, but countries with lots of Muslims, how many do you need for Osama to make you his business? With Muslim immigration to Europe growing, and a higher birth rate among Muslims, eventually they could reach a critical mass so that Osama gets to decide what is right for those countries too. Will he or his designates then get to be represented in the European Union and in various European governments? Surely they should (one suspects that these representative bodies wouldn't last very long if they did). Although the vast majority of the world's Muslims have never claimed to be represented by this man, he is willing to kill lots of innocent people, so his aims must be valid.

It is not encouraging racism to say that Osama and those who agree with him seek to destroy our way of life, unless you group all Muslims in with Osama (and even then it wouldn't really be racist, as last time I checked Muslims can be any race). What is racist is to assume that the people of the Middle East want to live the way that Osama bin Laden thinks that they should, as though people with darker skin are somehow less democratic by nature.

It's all very well for people like Robert Fisk to demand that we appease Osama, because they are going to get to continue to lead their well off Western lives. No one is ever going to force Robert into a burka or stone him to death for showing a little too much ankle. Just as no one was ever going to force King Gustav into a gas chamber. Pity that.

"An air of weary inevitability"

Ian McEwan's piece in the Times today reflects on the mood in London after yesterday's attacks:

...now the disaster was upon us, it had an air of weary inevitability, and it looked familiar, as though it happened long ago. In the drizzle and dim light, the police lines, the emergency vehicles, the silent passers-by appeared as though in an old newsreel film in black and white. The news of the successful Olympic bid was more surprising than this. How could we have forgotten that this was always going to happen?

We now live in a world in which it will continue to happen. It is not a matter of if the next attack will occur, but where and when. I hope that we will never come to the point that these things cease to shock us, but perhaps surprise is not in order any more.

Thursday, July 07, 2005



London's Reaction

From the London News Review

"What the fuck do you think you're doing?

This is London. We've dealt with your sort before. You don't try and pull this on us.
Do you have any idea how many times our city has been attacked? Whatever you're trying to do, it's not going to work.

All you've done is end some of our lives, and ruin some more. How is that going to help you? You don't get rewarded for this kind of crap.

And if, as your MO indicates, you're an al-Qaeda group, then you're out of your tiny minds.
Because if this is a message to Tony Blair, we've got news for you. We don't much like our government ourselves, or what they do in our name. But, listen very clearly. We'll deal with that ourselves. We're London, and we've got our own way of doing things, and it doesn't involve tossing bombs around where innocent people are going about their lives.

And that's because we're better than you. Everyone is better than you. Our city works. We rather like it. And we're going to go about our lives. We're going to take care of the lives you ruined. And then we're going to work. And we're going down the pub.

So you can pack up your bombs, put them in your arseholes, and get the fuck out of our city."

Well said indeed.

(Via Andrew Sullivan)

It continues...

The terrorists continue their attacks. Today it was London.

This is not about Iraq, this is not about the G8. This is about a group of nihilists seeking to destroy our way of life. They cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be appeased. They must be defeated.

Canadians need to understand that this is about us too. Unfortunately, I don't get the sense that we do.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

From the folks who brought you WeLoveTheIraqiInformationMinister.com

Tom Cruise Is Nuts*


*For those of you who feel that this is outside the mandate of this blog, please note that Tom Cruise is an ambassador for one of the world's great religions and I had totally always intended to deal with spiritual issues.

I confess I had just assumed France was just going to buy it this time

London has won the Olympic Bid. Jacques Chirac is a loser...

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

I tried to resist, but...

Refering to the English, Jacques Chirac said that he "can't trust people who have such bad food...". Hmmm. How to reply, how to reply? I know: you certainly trusted us to help liberate you from the Germans.

Next time you're in a spot of trouble ask the Italians to help or something, we'll be at home eating fish and chips (I haven't felt so viscerally English, or non-vegetarian in a very long time).

Monday, July 04, 2005

I suppose we're all entitled to our opinions...

African Union leaders meeting for a summit in Libya have expressed reservations about whether the G8 leaders will be able to solve Africa's problems.

President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir thinks that the G8 countries have their own problems to worry about and can't be solving Africa's:

But if it can, the G8 should “not only lift the interest on debt but the debts themselves, because they are the biggest catastrophe facing African countries...”

Really? 'Cos I kinda thought that the biggest catastrophe facing his country was the willingness of the government to turn armed militias on its own citizens.

But as usual, our old friend Bobby chose the most appropriate thing to say:

“This is the most important African summit ever for it concentrates on real problems in the continent which are security and poverty,” President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe told AP.

I can only assume that he isn't referring to the kind of security that comes from having a house to sleep in.

Shall we just hand them over a big pile of cash right now? Because, let's face it, you can't accuse either one of them of being the kind of man who can't get things done.

Damn you G8, listen to these people!

There is an interesting piece in the Christian Science Monitor asking Africans and Live 8 attendees about the solutions to Africa's problems. I think it's fair to say that the concert goers could do with a little bit more 'consciousness raising' of their own before the G8 leaders listen to them. My personal favourite was the Italian who couldn't name a single African leader (only half of those asked could), who claimed that he himself was a victim: a victim of a lack of information. Because that's the big problem at the start of the 21st Century, there just aren't enough sources for information. A person who gives a damn about Africa could never find out about Thabo Mbeki's strange beliefs about HIV/AIDS or how Robert Mugabe is destroying Zimbabwe, or how Joseph Kabila is supposed to be leading DR Congo toward democracy despite a complete lack of ability, or the attempts of Yoweri Museveni's supporters to change Uganda's constitution so that he could run for another term in office. Even assuming that your only source for information (you poor victim) is the TV news, you might have heard about how Moammar Gadhafi gave up his nuclear weapons program last year. No? Well, don't let that stop you from having an opinion on the solution to Africa's problems!

It is telling that the Africans interviewed had far less faith in their leader's to spend aid money effectively than the incredibly well informed concert-goers. They must have been brainwashed by Western imperialists or something.

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Don't Be Like Kofi!

In a documentary made by the BBC Kofi Annan expresses disappointment that the world has barely reacted to the genocide in Darfur. If he was the sort of person in a position to get the world to pay attention, I'm sure he would talk about it every day to whomever would listen and shame the world into do something. As it is, he's just the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

He also points out that the world's response to this genocide proves that we learned nothing from Rwanda. I won't disagree with him on that point. But what I find most interesting about his statement is not that we haven't learned anything from Rwanda, but that most of the world hasn't learned anything about Rwanda. Or at least the genocide that occurred there. Because anyone who knows anything about Rwanda in 1994 knows that while Romeo Dallaire was begging the UN for the power to do something to prevent the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, Kofi was urging caution.

In the same documentary, the American Ambassador to the U.N., John Danforth provides excuses as to why the U.S. could not consider military intervention. If Kofi really wanted to see action he would be saying to people like John Danforth every day "11 years ago I was like you, I didn't see the urgency, I watched people die and came up with excuses to not do anything when people were demanding that we stop murder and I have to live with that every day. Don't be like me." But the thing is, despite the fact that he should feel tremendous guilt, I don't get the sense that Rwanda profoundly affected him. If it had, he wouldn't just offer pat phrases like "we learned nothing from Rwanda".

Friday, July 01, 2005

Happy Canada Day.... morons!

Let's celebrate this Canada Day by acknowledging how completely ignorant we are about our history.

Homeless Zimbabweans Glum

A U.N. Envoy is in Zimbabwe this week and is preparing a report on the demolitions that have left hundreds of thousands of people homeless. Despite my initial skepticism that the U.N. never really accomplishes anything, I have to confess that she seems to be asking the hard-hitting questions.

"'When I asked them if they were happy, I got a resounding no. So definitely there are challenges that we have to sort out,' she said, quoted by AFP news agency, after visiting the Caledonia Farm site [where displaced people are being housed]."

Elsewhere on the continent, people are starting to express concerns that Darfuris are "feeling a little low".

Friday, June 24, 2005

As if to prove my point....

The African Union has declared that they will not pressure Robert Mugabe to stop his campaign to destroy his own country. Because, ya know, they've got bigger things to worry about. Which, whilst true on a 'I would rather have my home and business knocked down and lose my livelihood than be violently raped by marauding janjaweed and have my village destroyed by fire as they leave' level, doesn't really inspire much hope for solving Africa's problems.

Zimbabwe had potential, it had plentiful natural resources and a functioning economy, but in recent years Robert Mugabe has destroyed this, along with any sense of democracy. We can send aid and cancel debt until kingdom come, but until Africans start dealing with their own problems, nothing is going to improve.

South Africa's government continues to show an unwillingness to confront the problem, despite the fact that Zimbabwe's dependence on them for electricity means that they could have significant influence in this situation. According to the president's spokesman:

"South Africa refuses to accept the notion that because suddenly we're going to a G8 summit, we must be reminded that we must look good and appease the G8 leaders," he said.... We will do things because we believe they are correct and right."

Stay home then. The whole point of South Africa being invited is that the G8 leaders are supposed to be talking about how to resolve Africa's economic problems. With its response to the Mugabe issue, the South African government has shown that they really have no interest in this. I see no purpose in their involvement. Zimbabwe is a country populated mostly by black people, Mugabe is a black man; Thabo Mbeki is still so caught up in apartheid-era struggles, that he does not seem to be able to wrap his head around the idea of black people as oppressors. But it is time to grow up and come to terms with the fact that Africans need real solutions, not just people spouting anti-colonial jargon......Well, either that or a bunch of free concerts in major cities (and Barrie) across the globe demanding that the G8 solve all of Africa's problems by cancelling their debt. Yeah, let's do that instead.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Lemon on Live8

So Bob "I care so much about Africa I have no time for personal hygiene" Geldolf has climbed back up on his soapbox and it is time for us to care about Africa again. Who said the eighties aren't back?

This time the concerts are free rather than being fundraising events, because although we are trying to increase aid to Africa, the idea that individuals have responsiblity goes against Bob's leftist principles. Rather, we must lobby our governments, who will take our money and decide how it is best spent. Because they do such a good job with that domestically.

The one thing I will say for the original Live Aid is that, as a child at that time, I remember fundraising and worrying about the little children in Africa who weren't getting fed. Sure, our efforts resulted in propping up a Marxist government that would have made Stalin proud, but they never told us that on Blue Peter. At least there was a message that we could all chip in and make things better rather than waiting for the government.

We have all hopefully learned that the solution is not just to throw money at Africa (or anywhere else for that matter), and if you listen closely that is not even what the Live8 people are saying. But the problem with both Live Aid and Live8 is that they treat Africa and Africans like they are a project. As if there is nothing that Africans can do but sit around and wait for rich countries to solve their problems. People keep talking about a "Marshall Plan" for Africa. We have sent far more money to the countries of Africa over the years than was given to Europe by the Marshall Plan. But Africa continues to have major problems. More money is not the solution. Africans need to get their own houses in order. Yes, debt relief is important for a country like DR Congo, which is indebted to people who sent funds knowing full well that Mobutu was using it to buy himself a lavish lifestyle. But you could erase Congo's debt tomorrow and it would still have a war in its eastern provinces, it would still have corruption and its elections would still be on hold. The Marshall Plan existed to help the countries of Europe rebuild after the war. Africa is not post-war Europe.

And what the hell is fair trade? Getting rid of farm subsidies in Europe and North America that are destroying agrarian economies? Sure, I'm all for that. But what the Live8 people seem to want to do is have state ownership of industry in Africa (I have to guess that this is what they want to do, because their website is very short on actual facts and very big on "the rich are so evil and trying to screw over Africa!") . Well, Mobutu was certainly all for state-owned industry. Let the people who have been robbing Africans of their wealth for decades continue to control everything. That sounds like a plan!

I will grant you that the gap between rich and poor is getting wider. Which matters not at all, because the poor (despite what they like to say) are not getting poorer. It is not a zero-sum game. I'm not poorer because Bill Gates has billions of dollars. The people of Africa aren't poorer because I have thousands of dollars. The fact that lots of people live on $2 a day means nothing (have you noticed that their income has doubled in the last few years? It used to be $1. My income has doubled in the last few years too, but I was a student before... unless the continent of Africa also graduated from university in the past decade, it seems that they are doing pretty well!). What is $2 worth in a small village in Chad? I haven't a clue. I know it's worth more than $2 in Toronto. I'm not going to suggest that there isn't massive poverty or that millions of people are unable to meet even their basic needs. But irrelevant statistics about how much a person earns in US dollars when they are living in a completely different economic system help nobody. There is a poverty in Africa that cannot even be imagined in North America. But that is not the whole story. There is also a developing middle class. Africa is much better than it was 20 years ago. The poor are getting richer.

Live8 seems to be about making Africa a permanent welfare continent. The average African would be much better served by a huge marketing blitz pointing out that Africa is a great place for cheap labour. Perhaps you're not going to open up a factory in Darfur, but you could open one in Gaberone or Kampala. There are parts of Africa where the population is not educated enough, and the government is too corrupt for most companies to set up shop. But a lot of resistance to investing in Africa comes from the perception that it is a lost continent. Bob Geldolf and his ilk are never going to be part of changing this, because they don't think that corporations can make anything better. For all the supposed evils of globalisation, where would you rather raise a family, South Korea or Niger?

There is no wealth creation when I send money to Africa, there is just a transfer of funds to help people get by. But when someone starts a company or opens a plant, that person hires people, who can now pay taxes, and buy local products and the economy actually grows. And people use their wealth to educate their children, who start companies of their own. Ah, capitalism! And the great thing about this system, as opposed to the Live8 debt relief/aid/state owned industry solution is that it actually creates permanent wealth, and isn't dependant on Bob Geldolf hosting a rock concert every twenty years or so.

I do applaud Bob Geldolf and Bono for actually caring and trying to do something. They certainly aren't just paying lip-service to the problem, like so many other celebrities tend to do. I just wish they would take a second to recognize that what made them so wealthy wasn't somebody paying off their Visa bill as a favour when they were poor musicians, but a company recognizing their potential, taking a risk and investing in them. What worked for U2 can work for Africa.