However, there are certain issues that appear periodically on any country’s political landscape that are blatantly non-beneficial and costly from a societal perspective. Because it is society that will have to bear the burden and consequences of these government actions, the question of how and whether civil society can recognise the stupidity of such proposals, and mount an effective opposition to them, is something that has been bothering me for some time. To illustrate what is meant by a “blatantly non-beneficial and costly” potential government action I will discuss two relevant and recent issues: the Iraq War and the issue of whether Canada should participate in the proposed North American Ballistic Missile Defence Shield.
One thing that I have always admired about ‘western’ civilisation is the ability of regular individuals to vent their disagreements with their respective governments. A popular form of dissent is of course holding a demonstration in public. But to be perfectly honest, I took part in a demonstration or two in my life, and I never felt like I was getting anywhere. In fact, most of the time I felt a little silly chanting the cheesy slogans.
That’s not to say that demonstrations and public opposition at government action are necessarily useless. I’m sure you can find examples of governments taking heed when public opposition was particularly strong. But that will likely depend on two factors. One factor is to what extent is the government determined to achieve that which is troubling the demonstrators. The other factor is when considering the nature and extent of the protest(s) are the costs of ignoring the protesters acceptable politically? Practically speaking, I would argue that these would be the general considerations a government would make in this sort of situation.
So when the stakes are high, and these days I believe there many high-stakes issues out there in this dangerous and increasingly lawless world we are living in, can civil society effectively participate in the political decision making process to block what I described previously as idiotic decisions that may be taken by governments against the interests of society as a whole? Or, has apathy by the masses combined with indifference by politicians at society’s future interests overridden this principle’s effectiveness practically? Are most members of society satisfied with simply electing their representatives to their respective parliaments and being confident that he/she will act in their best interests?
So now we get to two issues that are relevant in this context. Iraq and missile defence. Perhaps public protests weren’t enough to stop the war in the United States, but considering that England, America’s most significant co-conspirator of the Iraq war, experienced a record 2 million protestors in London, who were effectively ignored with impunity by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is really something citizens of these societies should ponder. The implications for the future of ‘democracy’ don’t appear too promising if elected representatives can simply get away with actions that are contrary to the interests of society, as well as being against their wishes.
Perhaps if this war were of immense necessity as far as the UK’s national interests were concerned, and Tony Blair had no choice but to risk his own citizen’s lives, Iraqi lives, and scarce resources wasted on such an adventure, then Tony Blair could have been forgiven for his decision and for ignoring massive public opposition to the war. But as most of us have learned, this war was founded on completely false or irrelevant premises. The original excuses pertaining to weapons of mass destruction were laughably false. If the UK and the US were so concerned about ordinary people suffering under ruthless dictatorships, then that would naturally entail that they should occupy every country that fits that profile, including some of their allies. It should also entail that from now on they will cease to support such ruthless dictatorships militarily, economically, or covertly, as they have done repeatedly in the past (including, of course, supporting the now deposed Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein).
It is likely that the hypocrisy surrounding the pre-war bonanza was not lost on British citizens, as reflected by the sheer extent of the protests. I would like to believe that if a war to protect a nation were imminent it would hardly need an elaborate drama to convince the public that their sacrifice in blood and treasure is necessary. After all, it isn’t Tony Blair that is making the big sacrifice when making these decisions, except of course to his integrity. Society pays for this war through taxes and through their children. Mr. Tony Blair, in the meantime, has the luxury of using fabricated intelligence reports as he comfortably debates the British parliament on the merits of joining America’s so-called ‘coalition’ while his soldiers are shelling Iraqi cities and getting shot at in the hot Iraqi desert.
Even the oil factor and geo-strategic considerations, which were likely the real motivators behind the war, are not bearing fruit. Iraqi pipelines are being continuously sabotaged, and it doesn’t appear that the day Iraq will emerge as a model democracy for other regimes in the Middle East to follow is anywhere closer. Thus, from almost every angle, this war is quickly turning into the dreaded quagmire that many had feared, and warned about, at the outset.
What if former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien did not have the foresight to see this war and its implications for the disaster it has become? Could the protests that took place throughout Canada have effectively stopped what may have been quite possibly one of the most idiotic decisions a Prime Minister could have made? Would there have been any effective way that society could have signalled its disapproval of this war? What’s really frightening is that many European countries that participated in the war, such as Spain, Italy and the UK, experienced significant public opposition to the invasion of Iraq, as indicated by protests and polls that took place at the time. If Martin and Graham had their way would they have suggested that it would be necessary for us to make this ridiculous sacrifice for the sake of our relationship with the United States? And is there anything society could have done to signal their disapproval to the extent that this silly duo might reconsider?
Consider the implications, and what Canada has avoided by taking the wise decision to avoid this war. Contrary to what Blair and Bush claim the war in Iraq never ended and is worsening. In the immediate post-invasion period most mainstream media reported an average of 20-30 attacks a day against occupation forces. As of October 2004, this figure has risen to approximately 80 attacks a day. The increased oil exports, which were supposed to have financed the war indirectly, are actually lower than they were during the Saddam Hussein era. Foreigners are being kidnapped repeatedly for political purposes and ransom. Crime is out of control. Iraqi civilians, in almost every aspect, are astonishingly suffering even more than they were under Saddam Hussein’s regime because of the complete lack of stability and security. And finally, the occupation forces are dealing with a highly militarized and hostile society, where there is no shortage of heavy weapons from the disbanded army, and where roughly 80,000 elite ex-Republican Guards still roam freely having never surrendered or been captured after the fall of Baghdad (let alone the 400,000 strong former Iraqi army).
In fact, some independent news sources suggest that this may have been a deliberate act by the Republican Guard, who, knowing that they were no match for the US-led occupation forces in a conventional scenario, melted into the civilian population and allowed the occupation of Iraq to proceed with little resistance. All in all, what we’re really seeing in Iraq now is asymmetric warfare being waged by local Iraqi groups (and allegedly foreign fighters) who are using cheap and simple weapons to make this occupation a very costly one for those involved, rendering the high-tech American war machine a virtual laughing stock in many parts of the world, with their inability to quell a constantly evolving resistance.
Canada as a whole has avoided this madness and continues to enjoy a solid international reputation as a peace-keeping nation that abides by international law. Canadians should never feel ashamed that they are not in the spotlight with glamorous comic book talk about fighting evil with evil, spreading freedom with bombs, and promoting democracy with puppet regimes – which in effect is what the United States does. The relatively just, law-abiding, socially conscious and tolerant society Canada has produced, in this day and age, is a real source of pride. So let’s hope it stays that way.
So now, we get to the current issue of missile defence. I read on CBC news that it is estimated that Canada may have to contribute a portion towards the (estimated) 60 billion US$ . It’s bad enough that the press and everyone keep whining about a lack of funds for health care and education, not to mention this burdensome debt that has to be re-paid. Given the latter, missile defence is hardly a wise investment when important national priorities exist. I don’t know what genius comes up with these ideas. Maybe it was someone who grew up watching too many science fiction movies as a child. I am no expert on the technological aspect, but still, the rest of us have some basic tools we can use, out of reason and rationality, to judge the benefits and costs of missile defence.
First of all, we’ve all heard someone describe missile defence as “trying to hit a bullet with another bullet”. So let’s assume this technology becomes more reliable where it can actually do this on occasion. Will this be enough to thwart the unlikely event of a Russian attack? I read once that Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, warned that Russian missiles have effective decoy technology. So, if the Russians really had the intention to nuke North America they would probably be able to get a few hundred missiles across anyways. So really, there’s no point wasting that $60 billion on missile defence, since you’re going to have to hit the decoys as well as the real thing. It is unlikely that a large scale nuclear attack can ever be thwarted.
Apparently this proposed system is meant for a smaller scale attack, like an ‘accidental launch’ by a presumably incompetent Russian military, or a small attack by a an ‘evil’ state such as Iran or North Korea. But this argument doesn’t hold up either. First, if there is worry about decaying Russian nuclear silo and command facilities then the money could be better spent helping them upgrade their safeguards against an accidental launch, plus it won’t cost as much and be a more prudent measure. Second, a small state like Iran or North Korea would not likely risk their own annihilation in an American retaliatory attack if they launched one of their warheads into North America. So I doubt they would do it.
Did I forget to mention that Russia is particularly angered by the fact that the proposed shield violates the terms of the (bilateral) 1972 Anti-Ballistic Treaty signed with the United States?
Why would Canada want to bring themselves into the spotlight over these unrealistic, internationally unpopular, illegal, and wasteful American ambitions? The United States is already a heavily indebted nation, and they’re going to have trouble paying for missile defence. I hardly think they have Canada’s best interests at hand when they ask for a significant monetary contribution. Canada should continue to maintain its peaceful and diplomatic foreign policy, using force only for defence or under UN sanctioning. By associating itself with this provocative and controversial missile defence program Canada may very well damage the relatively neutral and excellent reputation it currently enjoys as a peace-keeping nation. Missile defence is something that will attract negative attention, especially from other nuclear powers.
All in all, it looks like another idiotic proposal. Hopefully, like the Iraq war, it will not materialize into an idiotic decision, at least from Canada’s perspective.
Maybe what should seriously be undertaken is better intelligence to detect any possible plans to bring in a dirty bomb or something of the sort into Canadian territory. That sounds like a more realistic defensive measure, although I personally don’t see why anyone would want to harm Canada, especially to that extent. The point is the billions of dollars of Canadian contribution can be used to increase security in far more effective and intelligent ways, with enough left-over for stuff like education, health and debt repayment. You don’t need fancy and complicated technology as a solution to everything. The Iraq war has shown the virtual impotence of all the high-tech multi-million dollar American weaponry to crush an intensifying resistance that relies on AK-47s, RPGs and homemade bombs.
So now being faced with this issue, can regular Canadians, who don’t belong to powerful lobbies or influential policy making bodies, be able to participate in the decision-making process through vocal protests and demonstrations to thwart this idiotic proposal? I have a little faith that a large enough organized nationwide protest can pressure the two Star Wars prodigies, Bill Graham and Paul Martin, whom up until recently I had some respect for, to reconsider. Although I stated that I felt that demonstrations may be ineffectual, especially if the government is determined to achieve whatever controversial proposal is put forward and if the majority of people are particularly apathetic. I sincerely hope that I am wrong.
Civil society should be able to develop a method to mobilize and alert citizens and to identify important issues that are being considered by the government. I am not talking about day to day issues, such as taxes and social services. Issues that have huge economic, political and social implications, such as the Iraq War and Missile Defence, which could have a significant impact on Canada’s future, should be identified and addressed by civil society more directly so that the interests of the people can be made clear to the government. Those in power, universally it seems, have the tendency to do ridiculous things on a regular basis. Normally this is something tolerable and expected. But if Chrétien had sent Canadian troops to Iraq, this is a decision I don’t think the majority of us could have forgiven him for.
« return.