Beijing, the city where I live and work, is now in a period of frantic preparation for the opening of the Olympic Games on August 8. Perhaps because almost all sports bore me to tears, I look at the Olympics as a period of temporary madness that humans go through at precise four-year intervals, not unlike a U.S. election campaign. I can only agree with George Orwell, who in his essay “The Sporting Spirit” seemed baffled by

…nations who work themselves into furies over these absurd contests, and seriously believe - at any rate for short periods - that running, jumping and kicking a ball are tests of national virtue.

A leafy sculpture of an Olympic cyclist in Beijing

China has worked itself not so much into a fury as into a lather of anticipation. In recent weeks, various Olympic-themed decorations have appeared (see photo), new subway lines have opened, and the informal streetside economy of pedlars and vegetable-sellers has been sharply curtailed. Canadians who visit Beijing for the Olympics will find a city that is tidier and more user-friendly than the one I’ve come to know since I moved here last October, but the bustling spontaneity of the place has suffered slightly as a result.

It’s easy to understand why Beijing is taking its role as host so seriously. This is China’s great chance to impress the world, following a long period of relative isolation. Equally, many activists in the west make no secret of their desire to spoil China’s party with disruptive protests. Some world leaders have been publicly agonising over whether or not to attend the opening ceremonies, balancing worries over Tibet and Darfur against friendship with China. (Stephen Harper will not be going, but then, Canadian Prime Ministers traditionally do not attend anyway.)

In my opinion, all the criticism is beginning to sound a bit mean-spirited. Of course there are areas of friction, but they should not overshadow China’s recent accomplishments. In the past 150 years, China has experienced extremes of brutality, humiliation and deprivation that would be difficult for many Canadians to imagine. To have risen above these historical vicissitudes to become an economic powerhouse with a credible space program is a spectacular achievement. In September we can go back to geopolitics as usual, but meanwhile China deserves a round of sincere and uncritical applause. The Olympics, trivial as they may seem to curmudgeons like myself, are an appropriate occasion.

Senator Elaine McCoy wrote an op-ed in ‘The Hill Times’ today that is well worth a read. In it, she calls for political unity and an end to partisan bickering in the face of the tremendous challenge of tackling climate change and (as she calls it) “decarbonizing our economy”.

Specifically, she is calling for the establishment of a ‘climate cabinet’ to coordinate the efforts of multiple ministries as they pertain to climate change and sustainable energy issues.

Once established, this climate cabinet could establish an all-party Joint Parliamentary Committee of MPs and Senators to oversee the transition from a carbon-based energy sector to a diversified energy sector that includes a significant proportion of renewables.

She draws examples from Europe, citing Germany’s decades-long investment in renewable energy and Sweden’s green electricity certificate system, and insists that it’s not too late for Canada to catch up and even take the lead in moving the developed world away from fossil fuels.  But it won’t be easy.

Successful policies that address climate change, particularly promoting renewables, necessarily cross departments, sectors and jurisdictions. No single department or ministry can effectively tackle all their complexities.

Hence the need to elevate federal policy coordination from one department to a higher-level body that will ensure integration throughout the federal and provincial governments. Indeed, the changes necessary to decarbonise our economy will require a complete reorganization and mobilization of the machinery of government.

Senator McCoy is in a unique position to be making these somewhat radical suggestions.  She has been one of the more active and attentive members of the Senate’s Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee for some time now, sharing her experiences and insights from time to time through her blog - which as far as I know is the only Senator-authored blog in Canada.

More significantly, Elaine McCoy is a Progressive Conservative Senator representing the province of Alberta.  So if she of all people - with no political points to score and no corporate donors to answer to - believes that the time has come for us to put aside our differences and start immediate nation-wide action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, then perhaps we should all be listening.

Sober second thought indeed.

Le 23 mai 2008, le plus haut tribunal du Canada statuait unanimement que la procédure contre Omar Kadr, détenu à Guantanamo, était « contraire au droit interne états-unien et à des conventions internationales sur les droits de la personne dont le Canada est signataire ». Cette déclaration de la Cour suprême du Canada est claire : le gouvernement canadien a été complice de violations du droit international en permettant aux Américains d’emprisonner Omar Kadr.

Cette dénonciation avait mis le gouvernement Harper dans l’embarras et suscité une vague de protestations contre celui-ci. Cependant, la diffusion le 15 juillet 2008, par les avocats du jeune détenu, d’une vidéo montrant ce dernier prostré, apeuré et appelant à l’aide de son pays natale (le Canada) devant des agents de renseignements canadiens a encore une fois mis le gouvernement dans l’impasse. Mais cette vidéo a surtout fait parlé du dossier Khadr dans les médias et suscité une certaine indignation de la part des Canadiens pour le gouvernement d’Ottawa. Cette vidéo est d’autant plus marquante qu’elle fait l’objet d’une opération de « dévoilement » de la part des autorités canadiennes – et américaines? – (même si ce sont les avocats qui ont décidé de divulguer les enregistrements, ceux-ci étaient nécessairement sous le contrôle des autorités canadiennes ou américaines) puisque Omar Kadr est le premier prisonnier de la base militaire américaine que l’on découvre pendant ses interrogatoires, tenus en 2003, alors qu’il avait 16 ans.

Dès lors, le débat public a radicalement et rapidement tranché. La question Khadr a basculé dans le camp des défenseurs des droits de la personne. Il est évident que reprocher au gouvernement conservateur de ne faire aucun effort pour assumer ses responsabilités envers un de ses citoyens est tout à fait normal et légitime, mais il est également important de répondre à d’autres questions qui n’ont été jusqu’ici que parcimonieusement évoquées. Par exemple : qui sont donc les parents qui ont décidé d’emmener leur fils dans un camp d’entraînement pour extrémistes en Afghanistan ? Pourquoi le gouvernement se montre-t-il aussi inflexible quand à la possibilité de rapatrier le jeune détenu? Pourquoi l’opinion publique canadienne a commencé à s’intéressé à cette affaire si tardivement, et apparemment après la diffusion de la vidéo?

Toutes les facettes de ce dossier n’ont pas encore été démystifiées. Il faut croire que les archives sont bien gardées et les autorités sont loin de divulguer une quelconque information susceptible de nous permettre d’en savoir davantage sur ce dossier. Bref, entre deux flashs de nouvelle et quelques articles d’informations mutuellement validés il est difficile de se faire une opinion éclairée sur un sujet aussi délicat.  

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, American President George W. Bush was quick to declare a “War on Terror”. Canada joined in at least to the extent of marching into Afghanistan, and passing an arguably repressive Anti-Terrorism Act in order to better combat terrorist activity and terrorist financing on the home front.

I always thought the phrase “War on Terror” was a bit silly, for a reason cogently expressed by the Polish-born American strategic thinker Zbigniew Brzezinski :

Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare — political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

To adapt an analogy that I believe Brzezinski himself has used, my grandfather never went to war against the strategic concept of blitzkrieg. He went to war against Germany and Italy. This is more than a semantic quibble, since it makes the difference between an idealistic crusade against all movements that employ terrorism and a sensible policy of fighting those specific terrorists who represent a substantive threat to Canada and its allies.

Perhaps Canadian troops are not fighting a War on Terror in Afghanistan, bur rather a more specific War on Al-Qaeda or at least a War on Militant Islam. The need for Canada and other western countries to actively fight such a war is obviously debatable, a point I’ll return to in future posts. Insofar as the need exists, however, it arises more from the desire of the jihadists to attack the west than from the tactics they adopt. If jihadists everywhere swore off terrorism, and stuck to more chivalrous tactics, it would still be approximately as necessary to fight with them. It would just be easier.

My other objection to “War on Terror” rhetoric is that it gives too much prominence to a phenomenon that is basically peripheral. Of course a successful terrorist attack is tragic on a small, human scale, but then, so is a car crash. According to Wikipedia, the 3,000 or so 9/11 fatalities amount to well under 10% of the number of people who die in car crashes in America every year.

By all means, we Canadians should take a few sensible measures to protect ourselves from the very small number of militant Muslims who realistically aspire to launch terrorist attacks against us. But let’s fight this minor battle with cool heads, and not let it become a distraction from our real problems.

This week, the world’s largest democracy embraced nuclear energy as a component of its economic development strategy. With cobbled coalitions, funding pledges and intense politicking, the government of Dr Manmohan Singh was able to gain parliament’s support for a nuclear trade deal with the United States struck in August 2007.

Although an emerging economic giant, many parts of India are without access to electricity. Parts of the Delhi, the capital, have frequent black-outs or rolling brown-outs due to unreliable and inefficient energy systems. Although India has had a long-standing nuclear energy program, it has operated under international sanctions since the escalation of the country’s nuclear weapons program and refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The new agreement would see an opening of India’s civilian reactors (whoever it would determine which sites are classified as “civilian”) to international inspectors, in exchange for nuclear fuel and technology.

Prime Minister Singh has declared his government’s intentions as peaceful, and in the spirit of economic development and environmentalism. He says that the deal will help raise millions out of poverty:

“It is all about widening our development options, promoting energy security in a manner which will not hurt our precious environment and which will not contribute to pollution and global warming.”

Prior to India’s testing of atomic weapons in the late 1990s, Canada and India had a strong nuclear relationship. Canada’s CANDU reactors had been sold to India and are often accused of providing the means for atomic weapons testing – this is an unfortunate misconception as CANDU’s safeguards make the plutonium involved impossible for weapons-grade. With a new deal in place, we could see a return to strong collaborative nuclear energy projects with India – building a clean electricity option for an emerging power and a new revenue stream for an energy power.

However, the deal is not final. India must coordinate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (of which Canada is a key member) separate agreements, to be followed by a vote by the United States Congress.

Nuclear is an attractive option for India, where a highly-educated and highly-skilled workforce may be put to use in providing stable electricity for national economic output. Do you think this is good for Canada? Should we trade nuclear materials and technology with an emerging economy? Should nuclear be a major component of our global energy diplomacy?