Poetry Cornered

This is not a criticism of Michael Ignatieff. I am being playful, interactive. It’s Sunday. But can you really corner poetry? The title of his latest blog post caught my eye Poetry Corner which sounds something like an elementary school educational unit safely stored in the sunny corner of the classroom to be visited on specified days in the curriculum; cute pictures and little poems under a fading sign “Poetry Corner” an edge of which has become untaped from the wall near the neglected end of semester. A special place near the window where flies come to die.

My idiosyncratic negative reaction is directed only toward the title because I liked the rest of the post a great deal. Knowing he shares incidental poems with Zsuzsanna, spotting one on the subway, makes me like him more than before.

No, I am just thinking about the title. The poetry is put in its corner, like a picture-frame which tells the bourgeois “This is art!” because otherwise they would not recognize it. But isn’t good poetry the sort of thing that even if you think that you have safely put it in its place its words escape again?

And I think over again

My small adventures

When with a shore wind I drifted out

In my kayak

And thought I was in danger

Of course, I am just joking around about poetry cornered. I am glad to see in an earlier post on the same blog that Michael Ignatieff reconfirms his support for the leader’s decision not to bring the government down over the budget. The media reports about conflict were quite remarkable. There have always been plenty of ambitious men and women in the Liberal party who know their own mind strongly --I wouldn’t want it any other way. So the fact that there would be disagreement over the timing of the election does not seem out of the ordinary. What is remarkable, though, is that the discussions were leaked to the media. There seem to be some rogue elements willing to trade in bad faith, people whose instincts tend toward the self-serving and the destructive. What do you say to people in that mood?

Anyway, since Michael Ignatieff has set such a good example, here is a poem by Frost that I like and comes to my mind from time to time.

I'm going out to clean the pasture spring;

I'll only stop to rake the leaves away

(And wait to watch the water clear, I may);

I sha'n't be gone long. –You come too.

I’m going out to fetch the little calf
That’s standing by the mother. It’s so young
It totters when she licks it with her tongue.
I sha'n’t be gone long. –You come too.

War, Peace and the Liberal Tradition

Does history provide any kind of model or pattern for the present?

Robert Bothwell, in an excellent historical essay which appeared in this morning’s Globe and Mail, sketches the face of the Canadian Liberal tradition toward the perennial issues of war and peace. I read the article more than once.

Bothwell adds detail to the topic which I have been wondering about over the last week and planned to post about, although my attention was directed more towards the future not the past. I have been thinking about the potential unintended consequences of “peace-making,” and military interventions in “failed states.” These two terms are in scare quotes because, to me at least, their potential ambiguity represents a set of pitfalls whose presence may be covered over by seemingly noble though unrealistic intentions.

One danger originates in a darker aspect of the human mind which is the tendency to exaggerate the diabolical qualities and powers of external enemies. Military involvement so easily invites the simple perceptions of good and evil which the media, acting in its role as entertainment, propagates in bold patriotic terms. The linked article provides numerous examples of this from our history. We also have examples from the present debate over Afghanistan. "Support the troops" "Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" etc. But when does bluster start getting in the way of peace-making? I have been wondering about whether the perhaps enlightened intentions of intervening in failed states might always be undermined by other less innocent impulses.

I’ll post more about this some other time, but that is the general direction of my thinking at the moment.

Failed Afghan Policy

I had not given much thought to Afghanistan before September 11th 2001. Most Canadians would be lying if they said that they did pre 9/11 –lying to themselves. I suspect that the Al-Quaeda attack was not “about” the forced conversion of the world to Islam but rather a response, rightly or wrongly, to perceived abuses of Western influence in the Arab world.

Afghanistan.

The Taliban are a local Afghan phenomenon, largely allied to the Pashtun tribe. It seems the word Taliban means “student” in reference to the Koran and names a religious movement that, as a government, if not completely competent did provide some stability to the country after years of war fueled by foreign interests (Russians, Americans etc). The question I have is: can the Taliban/Pashtun be excluded from the government of Afghanistan? To put the question somewhat in a Canadian context: could we tell Alberta or any other province that they can participate in Confederation only through Liberal representatives? You can have your say but only if they are Conservatives?

Its hard to change the minds of a religious movement. It seems to me that a bad situation would be compounded by excluding the religious/tribal Taliban/Pashtun group from power especially when the exclusion is enforced by Western (colonial) military forces. As I said, I think the 9/11 attacks were in fact motivated by the perception, rightly or wrongly, of abusive Western influence in the Arab world. I would not like the Canadian military “cure” to cause more problems than it is intended to fix.

The counter-insurgency efforts seem to be failing. While I believe that the intentions of those who would have us continue throwing soldiers and money at the Afghan mission are good, I also think that they are wrong. I am not a coward. You are not a coward. I just think that you are wrong and perhaps a bit naive. The goals of the current mission are ineffective and wasteful and I would not have another brave Canadian soldier (or Afghan civilian) die for wishful thinking.

Make a habit of two things: to help or at least to do no harm.

Although Canada has more than done its fair share, it is feasible that our military continue to serve a limited security role in the region while negotiations amongst the different factions of Afghanistan proceed --they better get on with it. But the aggressive counter-insurgency tactics are a failed policy and need to stop.

The Compromise

The compromise position is to stay in Afghanistan under the current mission mandate until February 2009. Harper’s proposed surge strategy, more troops more equipment, is not a compromise solution; it is an escalation. I fail to see how anyone could imagine that it is not just more of the same, more of a failed strategy on into an indeterminate future.

Certainly, to those in Ottawa, the Manley report must seem a refreshing change of tone in comparison to the barrage of insults and emotional rhetoric that has substituted for argument to date on the part of the Conservatives. But then again anything is better than the jingoism and simple minded pro-any-war statements Harper has made over the last two years. Though I appreciate the Conservatives’ decision to begin speaking like adults, I am not sure it merits special praise, and it should not alter the Liberal policy. The facts have not changed from a week ago. The security situation is deteriorating, NOT improving, and the end game realistically does not involve the eradication of the Taliban but rather a negociated settlement with them.

I would have the international community move toward the end game sooner rather than later, although, with regard to the current aggressive NATO tactics, Canada has done much more than its fair share. If hunting the Taliban is indeed worth continuing, then other NATO nations should be more than willing to step up.

Ending the current mission in February 2009 honors our international commitment while striking a fair compromise position amongst the larger part of public opinion. Maybe not everyone gets exactly what they want, but democratically it should do.

Nuclear Safety: No Leadership

Stephen Harper and the Conservative party resolutely refuse to accept any responsibility for the shut-down of the Chalk River nuclear facilities which threatened the world supply of medical isotopes.

Rather than show leadership, the Conservatives are trying to shift the blame to someone else. They blame the Liberals, they blame Linda Keen the nuclear safety regulator, heck they even tried to blame the former head of AECL who incidentally was a Conservative appointee with ties to the Conservative party.

Rather than present Canadians with the facts, which given potential public alarm over nuclear safety would seem the right course of action, Conservatives have tried to obscure the facts. Responsibility for the misinformation lies squarely at the feet of Stephen Harper.

Leadership is about more than just ordering people around. And recently (see my last two posts) the Harper Conservatives have demonstrated a flagrant lack of leadership. No Leadership on the ethics of the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal; no leadership on the legitimate economic concerns of the premiers. And if you know what the Conservative positions on the combat mission in Afghanistan or the Environment are, please let me know. Do Conservatives even know what their position is?

All the Conservatives’ talk about Leadership is only half what it seems to be. What about honesty? What about clarity of purpose? What about listening or even just a little executive competence?

Federal-Provincial relations: No Leadership

Well, Stephen Harper can check "Photo-op with Premiers" off his to-do list. The dinner with the premiers yesterday represents little more than the appearance of consultation i.e. an attempt to "neutralize" the fact that there have been no formal meetings with the premiers since Stephen Harper became prime minister.

Somewhat ominously, the Globe and Mail reports, “The Prime Minister did pledge to write to the premiers with a summary of the meeting and some ideas on how to push issues forward, Alberta's Ed Stelmach said.” Given Stephen Harper’s awkward leadership style this means they will receive a memo essentially saying: Here are your orders from the federal government, now shut-up.

Honestly, why can’t the premiers be more obedient like Conservative federal cabinet ministers. There would be more Unity and Openness in this country if the premiers would just do as they are told. A good premier should be seen and not heard. ; )

Joking aside, the Conservatives are not offering any leadership on the Environment or the Economy. Leaders also listen sometimes.

Mulroney-Schreiber Affair: No Leadership

In the eyes of a substantial block of voters, there is only one type of Conservative. There is no difference between Mulroney Conservatives and Harper Conservatives. There is one Conservative party --and until recently Stephen Harper was happy with the association. The Mulroney-Schreiber affair when explored will damage the Conservative brand one way or another. It is surprising then that the Conservatives are offering no leadership on the issue.

Admittedly, the Conservative scandal is a bit of a lose-lose situation, having the public associate the Conservative party with secret hotel meetings where ambiguous amounts of untraceable cash traded hands cannot help but sound bad while on the other hand denying the association of Brian Mulroney with the Conservative party is somewhat preposterous. But Stephen Harper is falling out of the tree and he seems determined to hit every branch on the way.

At first, Harper said there was no need for a public inquiry. Then Mulroney said he wanted a public inquiry, then possibly as a consequence Stephen Harper said he also wanted an inquiry. Mulroney later changed his mind and said he did not want an inquiry. Harper also seemed to change his mind and suggested he longer thought an inquiry was necessary. The recommendations offered by the independent advisor, David Johnston, do not provide more clarity because they are not legally binding and do not settle the issue of whether or not there will be a public inquiry. Harper can ignore the suggestions. He could set in motion a full inquiry with a broad scope as of tomorrow or, as is more likely, he will keep stalling. Meanwhile, those in the public and especially those in the media who would gladly defend Harper’s stance --were he to take one-- are left twisting in the wind. Is Mulroney really one of us, a Conservative? Do we need an inquiry in any form? How does this relate to the Conservative party’s position on Accountability? By not deciding, Harper is ultimately jerking around his own supporters and you can only do that for so long.

By offering no leadership, the Conservatives are also green lighting the House of Commons Ethics committee to do anything they want with the issue which, in my opinion, is the bigger side of the lose-lose equation.

The Conservatives have shown no leadership on this ethical issue. But wishful thinking aside, the Mulroney scandal is not going to go away on its own.