Politicana

There is no doubt that the Conservatives’ adroit public relations team was mostly responsible for their election win just over a year ago. Now keen PR instincts are again serving the Tories well as they launch a new ad campaign targeting Stephane Dion. Except during election time, it is unusual for the party in office to launch an advertising campaign bashing the leader of the opposition. It can appear partisan, petty, and often winds up actually invoking sympathy for the person attacked. However, the timing of these attack ads could make them the exception to that rule.

Since being elected as the leader of the Liberals, Stephane Dion has been reasonably successful at avoiding bad press in the media. However, while he has avoided many of the mistakes that are common to more outspoken politicians (Michael Ignatieff springs to mind) he has also been unable to create substantial positive press either. For the past few months, his reputation has effectively been stuck in neutral. While your average negative ad campaign will try to take a person the public is already familiar with, then cast them in a negative light, this campaign is simply filling the void of Dion’s unknown character. People are always more likely to believe ill of someone who they are unfamiliar with, because an unflattering description is most convincing when it can’t be compared to the reality.

All this isn’t to say that the Tories’ ad campaign couldn’t backfire. The ads themselves can sometimes seem like they are using quotations out of context to take advantage of Dion’s weakness with the English language (especially the one where he is arguing with Ignatieff in the Liberal leadership debates, yelling “that’s unfair!”). But more than likely I think the Conservatives will get away with the campaign, and Dion will find out the hard way that first impressions can last forever.

A number of Liberal MPs have recently come out saying that they think there should be another federal election as early as this spring. Luckily for the Liberals, Stephane Dion doesn’t seem to be one of those who are particularly eager to jump the gun, but there are still quite a few Liberal MPs that seem to think that it would be in the interest of their party to have an election sooner rather than later. These MPs are of the opinion that by triggering an early election, they could take advantage of a number of opportunities that may be fleeting.

First, Dion is a newcomer to the high profile political stage, and his reputation has not yet had a chance to be sullied. This seems a foolish thing to take advantage of. It’s not as if the Tories won’t have plenty of opportunity to sully during the election – election mudslinging is their specialty. Secondly, in making the environment a priority for 2007, Harper has put his government through a period of transition. Some Liberal MPs believe that when the Tories emerge from this period they will be on equal environmental footing with Dion’s Liberals. This simply isn’t true. On the issue of the environment, the left wing has home field advantage. The Canadian people are forever suspicious of the Conservatives’ willingness to effect environmental change, and their motives in doing so; especially in this case, where the greater part of Harper’s new environmental plan is straight out of the Grits’ Redbook.

The truth of the matter is that if the Liberals try to trigger a spring election they will pay for it. While some polls put the Grits ahead of the Tories by six percent or so, others place them in a dead heat, and the Liberals are likely to lose ground quickly if they call for a spring election. The Canadian public doesn’t seem to want an election barely a year after they voted Harper in, and the Liberals could lose points for triggering an unwanted election. Another issue is Stephane Dion’s English. English language debates are pivotal to any election campaign, and there is serious doubt that the Liberal leader has the linguistic skills necessary for the task. He seems to have a reasonable grasp on structure and grammar, but his pronunciation of makes him largely unintelligible. It’s nearly impossible to win a debate if no one can understand what you’re saying.

On the whole, the safe bet on Dion’s part would be to wait for late fall or early winter before pursuing another election. That way he could take the time to put the Harper government under heat over both environment and Afghanistan in a way that the Liberals simply couldn’t before they had a real party leader. He could also use the spring and summer to brush up on his English skills so he stands a chance of winning – or at least not losing miserably – in the English debates.

CTV.ca - Dion tells Liberals to think about next election

It is ironic how the United States’ war against radical Islam seems to have brought them back to the same countries they made war against 20 years ago.  First came Afghanistan.  This was a war against the Taliban, a regime that the Americans installed in the 80s because they felt it would be preferable to the Soviets.  They were wrong.  Then came the Second Gulf War, where the U.S. returned to Iraq either to fight terrorism or to replace Saddam Hussein, depending on whom you ask and when you ask them.  The original rationale for that war was long ago muddied by the continuing casualties and the constantly changing political scenarios.  Either way, it’s obvious that the situation in Iraq arose not because of who they installed in power last time they invaded, but because they failed to install anyone at all.  Now we recall 1992 as we read about U.S. military operations as well as a sanctioned invasion of Somalia by the Ethiopians.  It is becoming strikingly clear that any objectives we had the first time around in those countries were either accomplished temporarily, or not accomplished at all.

One of the major problems (at least in Afghanistan and Somalia) is the American’s tendency to side with their enemy’s enemy, no matter who that may be.  The Somali situation is a perfect example.  Somalia’s feeble 2 year old government had been overrun by an Islamic “militia”.  This threatened the United States, which has an inherent fear of any group that is both militant and Islamic.  It also bothered Somalia’s age old rival and neighbor Ethiopia, who was threatened by the fact they now had a capable and possibly hostile government next door.  The United States’ solution was simple, give a green light to Ethiopia who was just waiting for a chance to invade and replace the Islamic government with the one that had been in power before. 

These tactics make the U.S.’s pseudo-imperialism ineffective.  It’s obvious that you can’t gain the loyalty of the Somali people by overseeing an invasion by Ethiopia, their hated rival.  It’s also important to recognize that while the American media characterized the Muslim government as rebels, they were perceived very differently by the Somali people.  While their actions were arbitrary and no doubt harsh, in just a few months, the Muslim government succeeded in providing stability and stamping out corruption to an extent that hadn’t been seen since the Somali civil war in 1991.  Politics and religion aside, the people were just happy to finally have peace.  But now they see the United States as being responsible for re-installing a government of the corrupt and incompetent (many of the officials in the U.S. backed government are the same warlords responsible for the reign of terror that has been occurring since ’91, the President himself is a reported puppet – a former veterinarian with no political experience).  If the United States wants the loyalty of the people of the world, they need to exercise moral judgment when choosing their allies.  It is unacceptable to just team up with anyone and everyone willing to fight your enemies with you.

Showing that he may be going through an adjustment period to the constant spotlight of party leadership, Stephane Dion has now made one of his first significant errors. He is having to backtrack on an off the cuff remark he made regarding reinstating a former Liberal who had been banned for his role in the sponsorship scandal.  During what was apparently an impromptu questioning from reporters, he showed a huge lack of judgment by saying that he doesn’t approve of a lifetime ban from the Liberal party given to Mark-Yvon Cote for his role in the sponsorship scandal.  Cote is not the sort of person that Dion should be touching with a 10 foot pole.  After years as a provincial health minister in Quebec, Cote admitted to giving $120,000 in sponsorship money to Liberal candidates in 1997.  What makes matters worse is he still hasn’t come clean and admitted who he gave the money to.

It is understandable that with the constant questioning he is subjected to as Liberal leader, Dion is going to fumble the ball eventually.  But this was one question he should have seen a coming a mile away.  One of the most important factors for the Dion team during the Liberal leadership race was his lack of affiliation to anything sponsorship-related.  The combination of having a crystal clear record and also significant experience as an MP in the House of Commons was something that none of the other major contenders had; it was his proverbial ace in the hole.  After running an entire race with that as your major selling point, it should be unthinkable to yet again bog the party down in the leadership scandal by going to bat for those involved.  Up until now Dion’s political instincts have been surprisingly deft, but if he ever hopes to beat Stephen Harper in an election, he’s going to need to maintain a flawless performance without periodic and idiotic lapses like this one.

French presidential candidate Sagolene Royal (a surname you wouldn’t think would be terribly common after the French revolution), recently withdrew comments she had made supporting Quebec sovereignty. During a radio interview with Andre Boisclair, she declared that she supported the “freedom and independence of Quebec”. Boisclair, the head of the Parti Quebecois, lauded those comments as evidence that France was both in touch and sympathetic to Quebec’s independence movement. Needless to say this set off a firestorm among Canadian federalist politicians, and for the next week the Canadian media was filled with criticisms about both her credibility and her competence.

The jabs at her credibility are likely just for revenge (by and large, most of France would probably like to see an independent Quebec, and polls show that Royal is in fact a serious contender for the French Presidency) but the comments about her lack of competence hit the nail right on the head. French support for Quebec sovereignty is usually veiled behind ambiguous phrasing. Her candor on the issue was unusual and frankly inappropriate. As Stephane Dion said, one “does not wish for the dismantling of a friendly country”. It’s simply not her place.

Now Royal is coming out and saying she didn’t break France’s policy of “neither interference nor indifference”, and she merely intended to say that “in any democracy the people who vote are sovereign and free”. Really. That’s a pretty ridiculous denial. Firstly, she didn’t say she supported the independence of Quebeckers, she said she supported the independence of Quebec. Secondly, no one sits through an entire meeting with the head of the Parti Quebecois and then fails to understand the implications of wishing for an independent Quebec. I tend to think that if Royal can’t stand her ground on an issue like supporting Quebec independence, where most of her country is either indifferent or in agreement, then people shouldn’t count on her to stand by anything when the going gets tough.

HamiltonSpectator.com - Canada owed an apology

As soon as Canada became the first country to denounce and cut off funding to the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza, it became clear that the Harper government was taking a firmer, more pro-Israel approach to the Middle East than its predecessors. Traditionally, Canada has tried to stay as neutral as possible while still upholding our moral values. This is an approach that the Canadian people have been proud of, and have fully embraced. Keeping a veil of neutrality is necessary if a nation is going to play the role of a deal broker. Since being elected to government Harper has taken a come-out-swinging approach to the Middle East that rips that veil off the now snarling face of Canada. Foreign Affairs minister Peter MacKay’s recent visit to Israel, where he snubbed Palestinian foreign minister Mahmoud Zahar, has been little but a continuation of that approach. The real question is whether or not this new tough on terrorism attitude will be more effective than the moderation of the Liberal governments (which was by all means a colossal failure), or whether we are simply trading six of one for a half dozen of the other.

Had MacKay not refused to meet with Mr. Zahar as part of a Conservative policy not to deal with governments they consider terrorist, the first issue on the table would have been why Canada led a boycott of foreign aid payments to the Palestinian state. These boycotts have mostly been at the expense of the Palestinian people, as opposed to the Hamas government, which they were meant to target. Funding cuts have economically crippled the Hamas led Palestinian Authority, leaving over 170,000 of its workers with little or none of the salary they were promised. Canada is expected to give to foreign aid initiatives run by the World Band and European Commission.  These groups are trying to work around the Palestinian government, but those measures are largely ineffective, and a huge cash shortfall remains. Yet despite the strife felt by the average Palestinian, the Hamas government remains standing, and the ultimate goal of the West’s boycotts remains unachieved.

So at the end of the day it seems that our brave face and tough stand are earning us little except the ire of the Palestinian people. Yet with a Hamas led government there seems little else to do. It somehow doesn’t seem right to write a check to a government that condones military attacks targeting innocent civilians. Still, funding aside, you would think that opening the doors to simple dialogue wouldn’t hurt. Sweden and Norway, two other countries long heralded as preferring negotiation to conflict, have reached out and made contact with the Hamas government, while still balking at giving them money. Perhaps it is time for Canada to once again adopt a less polarizing position, and concentrate instead on mediation.

CTV.ca - MacKay discusses peace process with Israeli PM

This week Peter MacKay proved that media coverage doesn’t mean everything when an Angus Reid Strategies poll found him to be the most popular federal Tory in office. Generally, the rest of the results of the poll were unsurprising. The poll asked respondents which MPs in the Tory caucus they view favourably, and then assigned a score based on the differential between favourable or unfavourable votes. For example someone with a 60 percent approval and 40 percent disapproval rating would have a score of +20. Most MPs scored positively, but there were exceptions. Rona Ambrose, who has by all accounts handled her environmental portfolio horribly, fared the worst of with a score of -21. Stephen Harper’s favourable votes beat out his unfavourables by 10 percent. The only real shocking news was that Peter MacKay, despite his numerous political gaffes, scored the highest at +12.

I’m not sure whether Peter MacKay’s score is evidence of the Canadian population’s ignorance of his record, or their indifference to it.  MacKay’s recently showed a complete lack of both political savvy and personal class by referring to his ex-girlfriend Belinda Stronach as a dog in the house of commons, but his spotty record extends far further back than that. At the beginning of Harper’s term in office he had to withdraw comments that he as made regarding two Canadian hostages kidnapped in Iraq. He stated unequivocally that the hostages were alive when in reality he had no reliable information one way or another on their wellbeing. Add that to an inability to change Maher Arar’s status on the U.S. security watch list, despite a suspiciously close relationship with Condi Rice, and you see that in a relatively short time as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter MacKay has shown himself to be unequal to the task.

What is most disturbing about this recent poll, however, is that it solidifies his position as heir apparent to the Conservative throne. Other than Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper himself, he is clearly the biggest household name in the Tory cabinet. Also, he is the only former leader of a party that hasn’t failed to meet public expectations in the past (many would say that Stockwell has had his shot at the big seat and blew it). All this, combined with his youth and vitality make him a virtual lock as the next leader of the Conservative party. That is, unless his incompetence catches up with him before the position becomes available.

TheChronicalHerald.ca - MacKay most popular Tory, online poll finds

China has recently joined one of the world’s most exclusive groups – countries with anti-satellite missile capabilities. Their recent testing of missile systems capable of reaching targets in outer space are one brand of military testing that most of us dearly wish were forgotten when Russia and the U.S.A. mutually halted their testing programs with the end of the Cold War. Up until that point, the armament of space was largely viewed as the future of large-scale warfare, featuring America’s Star Wars technology and similar Russian programs. Now China is drudging up old fears and new questions.

As their first weapon’s test outside the Earth’s atmosphere, China recently used a medium-range ballistic missile to blow up one of their obsolete weather satellites. For a moment forgetting the more immediate and practical problems of this space testing, (their test consequently littered a highly orbited region of space with small pieces of metal that are still circling the Earth like bullets waiting for a target) you’ve got to be concerned about the future ramifications of what these tests mean. The detonation of a satellite (which measured just over one meter in length, a small target for 865 kilometers up) is undoubtedly and impressive feat, and a huge step forward for China’s reputation as a military superpower. It has triggered worried protests from Canada, the U.S., Britain, France, and a host of other powerful nations. What’s worse it has given traction to those Americans that advocate a more aggressive approach to the U.S.’s military policy in outer space. These tests are an unofficial declaration of China’s intention to close the ground on America’s monopoly on modern space warfare, and they could be the beginning of a new Cold War.

Sadly, the Bush administration has no one to blame but itself for this recent and provocative turn in events. In the interest of preserving their shrinking lead in space based weapons technology, they rejected former offers from Russia and China to sign bans on these sorts of tests. Now it looks like their plan to hold their military and technological superiority over their adversaries’ heads has backfired. In the interest of preventing the escalation of this potentially apocalyptic technology, serious pressure should be exerted from the international community for America to reconsider its position on signing an anti-proliferation treaty regarding space weapons. The big question is: now that the Chinese have been successful in using the testing of space weapons to boost their military image, can the cat be put back in the bag?

EarthTimes.org - International concern over China’s satellite-killing growing

After the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, it’s no secret that modern democracy doesn’t always break down as simply as one person one vote. Most industrialized countries have abandoned direct representation for some sort of first past the post electoral system in order to protect vital segments of their population that would otherwise be under represented. The first past the post system in Canada was adopted in order to make sure that rural populations didn’t get a short shrift in the House of Commons. Provinces with declining populations like Manitoba are even guaranteed a set number of seats in Parliament, no matter how low their populations become. There seemed to be little logic or value to this democratic favouritism to begin with, but now the first past the post system is actually discriminating against another valued part of the electorate.

Due to their high concentrations in urban areas, visible minorities are being cheated out of their right to equal representation. While visible minorities have grown to over 10 percent of the Canadian population in recent years, they make up close to 50 percent of the population in large urban areas like Toronto. These sorts of numbers, combined with the electoral weight given to rural areas, amounts to a very real discrepancy between the value of a white vote, and the value of a non-white vote. It has reached a point where discarding direct representation in favour of our current electoral system has begun to discriminate against certain minorities instead of simply protecting others.

It seems useless to try to manufacture a system to artificially compensate for the lack of political density in urban areas. The nature of a democracy is to recognize the economic and social value of any minority – be they rural or racial. It has come time to end the first past the post system and implement one that gives equal weight to every vote.

In Stephen Harper’s first year as Prime Minister, he has handled relations with the Chinese government markedly differently than his predecessors. Liberals generally have a reputation for being more concerned about human rights and less concerned about sheer economics than their Conservative counterparts, but on the China portfolio the polar opposite has seemed to be true. Both Paul Martin and Jean Chretien virtually led diplomatic parades through Tiananmen Square in the interest of preserving trade relations with the eastern giant, and while they made token criticisms about human rights violations, they did so feebly enough not to ruffle feathers… or make a difference. Stephen Harper on the other hand has been staunch in his criticism of china. The Prime Ministerial invitation to China, which usually comes shortly after we elect a new leader, was declined. Harper instead went on the offensive, criticising both China and the Liberal’s soft approach to a country that does not respect the rights of the individual, vowing not to do the same. Needless to say the Chinese, who are known for being touchy about their spotty human rights record, were not impressed. Canadian export growth to China, which has been shrinking in comparison to that of other industrialized nations since Chretien left office, plummeted in 2006. This could have far reaching consequences to the Canadian economy, which will increasingly need to rely on those exports as China’s economic power increases.

Despite the economic ramifications, Harper’s tough stance on China would probably been seen by most as admirable, except now he seems to be trying to soften his hard line. Harper is putting China high on the lists of 10 countries that are going to be treated as international trade priorities over the next year. He has dispatched trade minister David Emerson to China to try to “re-energize” the cooling relationship between our two countries. So now we are left to wonder whether Stephen Harper has suddenly changed his mind about the importance of human rights, or whether the bungled relations with China during his first year in office were simply incompetence. Either way, a change of course now only reinforces the impression that China’s bully tactics can be used to affect Canada’s stance on human rights.

CBC.ca - China will get more attention from Canada: Emerson