At the heart of freedom, capitalism and democracy is competition and the right to choose. But unfortunately in Canada, this is all too often not the case. In the Great White North, various levels of government, big corporations and powerful interest groups are out to make sure you don't get to make the choices that you deserve to make on everything from booze to what you watch on TV. And personally, I'm sick of it.
You don't have to be an avid follower of politics or current events to know when someone high up is trying to dictate the choices that you make. For example, any person who has ever purchased a case of beer or a bottle of wine in Ontario, the country's most populous province, knows that he or she can only get that case of beer or bottle of wine from the Beer Store and LCBO monopoly. Any suggestion of allowing other sources, such as supermarkets or convenience stores, to sell alcohol to the Ontario public is quickly quashed by the usual suspects: the left-wing Liberals and NDP and their big union friends who cringe at the idea of competition, because as long as Ontarians can only buy their booze from one source, the source that only employs their members, the union coffers will be full and the union bosses can continue to pig out at the trough financed by the average Ontarian.
Oh well, if we can't choose where we buy our beer and wine, maybe we'll have better luck choosing what to watch on TV....FAT CHANCE, Joe Canadian. Every one of us who has cable or satellite knows that when we pick the channels we want to watch, we don't usually get to pick and pay. Nope, the big wigs at Rogers, Shaw, Bell or Telus present us with "bundles" of channels that we have to choose from. Are you a big hockey fan who just wants to watch hockey on TV and nothing else? Tough luck, because not only will you be paying top dollar for all that hockey, but you'll also be paying for a bunch of other channels that you'll never watch. The folks at the big cable and satellite companies don't mind this arrangement because they know they'll never see competition from the likes of Time Warner or DirecTV (at least on a legal basis) since their friends in the federal government will never open the Canadian market to non-Canadian competition. It's pretty much the same with cellphone service providers. You have the big three companies, Rogers, Bell and Telus all selling plans and contracts at some of the highest rates in the industrialized world. Good luck to upstarts like Wind Mobile trying to break into the Canadian market since government red tape and foreign ownership restrictions pretty much guarantee that the big Canadian companies will continue to gouge us.
But before we blame the federal government and big cable and satellite companies for our high-priced telecommunications, we should first look at some of the interest groups that are also making our bills skyrocket. Do you think that you have to pay for channels you don't want to watch just because Rogers makes you? Think again! Government regulations require TV providers to force you to pay for channels you don't want. Why? Because powerful lobby groups, like the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting want to make sure that the folks in this country who make TV series, films and music don't have to compete with their fellow entertainment providers abroad. These folks say they're out to promote and protect Canadian content, or Can-Con for short. The problem is that they don't care how good or bad that content is, nor do they want to have to compete with content from the U.S. or any other country that might be more appealing to consumers. That's why instead of watching Comedy Central, we're stuck watching an inferior, Canadianized version called The Comedy Network. Want American channels, like the USA Network or TNT? Good luck getting them legally as long as the Can-Con watchdogs are on patrol and as long as people in government are beholden to them.
Of course, this kind of useless protectionism is not unique to the film, TV and music industries. For instance, chances are that when you have to do your banking, you'll be doing it with one of this country's big five banks: TD Canada Trust, the Bank of Montreal, CIBC, Scotiabank and Royal Bank of Canada. And as long as these big five monsters have control over the Canadian market, you'll continue having to pay outrageous fees to access your own money. Granted, we should all be thankful that our laws prevented the type of banking crises that have recently occurred in the U.S. and Europe, but I'm pretty sure that keeping the Big Five almost immune from competition was not part of what saved us from such dire circumstances.
The fact of the matter is that Canadians are sick of being gouged and having their choices limited when it comes to how they bank, watch TV or use their cellphones. So what do we do about it? Well, as in any democratic country, our first inclination is to use our hard-won right to vote to elect leaders who will bring about changes so that our bills will be lower and our choices greater. Unfortunately, it's not so simple because even our electoral choices are severely restricted by a system that discourages principle-based politics and encourages one-party government.
For those of you who don't know about how our elections work, we have what is called a winner-take-all or first-past-the-post system in which whoever gets the most votes in any riding wins the right to represent the riding in parliament, and whoever wins the most ridings gets to form the government. As for the folks who didn't vote for the winning candidates in each riding - well, their votes basically don't count. And since our system rewards parties who can manage to win the most ridings rather than the most votes, what we get are manufactured majority governments. Yes, that's right. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives have a majority in the House of Commons, but only because they won the most ridings. The majority of Canadians did not actually vote the Tories into power. In fact, Canada is one of the very few countries in the modern, democratic world that still uses this antiquated electoral system (the other two prominent examples are the U.S. and U.K.). Most other industrialized democracies use proportional representation or some kind of system that mixes proportional representation with geographical representation. I won't go into details about how these other electoral systems work. What you really need to know is that in these systems, every vote counts and the popular vote is represented fairly and accurately in national legislatures. They also produce multiparty systems with many different political groups on both ends of the political spectrum. Here in Canada, we've historically had to choose between either the Liberals or the Conservatives. Basically, it's like choosing between dumb or dumber, and it's up to you to decide which is which. Yes, the NDP is there too, but they've never taken power federally and they never will unless they water down their principles or merge with the Liberals, just like the folks in the Reform Party did when they merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form today's much less principled Conservative Party. The point is that our electoral system discourages real choice so that we only get to choose from what amount to different shades of the same colour. Sound familiar? If it does, it's probably because we have to make the same kind of choice when it comes to how you watch TV, do your banking or use your cellphone. In other words, whatever choice we're making, we always have to choose from among a few fat cats that at the end of the day are all pretty much the same.
Now I know that lately, the folks in both the government and opposition parties have talked about doing things to alleviate the lack of choice that Canadians have to deal with on several fronts. Hence, for example, new regulations putting an end to those annoying 3-year cellphone contracts. But these kinds of changes are merely cosmetic. What Canada needs is more competition so that we have more, better and cheaper options for how we watch TV, use our cellphones, do our banking, buy our booze or elect our politicians. The question is, will this ever happen? Will there be a freer market for goods, services and ideas in Canada any time soon? Not unless we take action.
I wrote this because writing is my way of taking action. There's no reason why many other people can't do the same thing. And if writing isn't your thing, there are other things you can do. For instance, if you don't like government, special interests, or big cable and satellite companies telling you what to watch on TV, cut the cord and stream your TV programs and movies from the internet. Don't like paying a fortune to the cellphone providers? Use free or cheaper services, like Skype or WhatsApp. And if you don't like bank fees, there are a growing number of outlets providing banking services without them. The point is that there are ways to get around the restrictions placed on our choices. Do some of these ways involve breaking the law? Perhaps, but as the great philosopher, Plato once said, those who are just disobey unjust laws, and in my mind, any laws that limit the choices of Canadians without a good reason are clearly unjust.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Monday, February 17, 2014
American Jewry Not Going Anywhere, So Stop the Panic Attacks Already!
I recently came across an article in an Israeli publication saying that American Jewry could cease to exist within a generation:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4488219,00.html
The headline is very unnerving, especially if you don't go on and read the whole article, which doesn't actually say that U.S. Jewry won't exist within the next generation, but rather that the majority of U.S. Jews will not be considered Jewish under the Halacha, or Jewish religious law. This law requires that a person have a Jewish mother for him or her to be considered Jewish. My immediate reaction to this impending reality is this: so what!?
Now, you may be asking why I'm so dismissive of this issue and why I'm not worried about the fate of U.S. Jewry (or Canadian Jewry for that matter). One reason is simply that the Jewish communities in both the U.S. and Canada have never been stronger and more vibrant. Only Israel has a larger Jewish community than the U.S. In fact, it was only a few years ago that Israel's Jewish population eclipsed that of American Jews.
Another reason is that in this day and age, I don't think we need rabbis telling us who is a Jew and who isn't, and I think there are many American (and Canadian) Jews who will agree with me on this. Unfortunately, there are still quite a few people that still think that there is only one way to be Jewish. This is particularly the case in Israel where Orthodox Judaism continues to retain a monopoly on the personal status of the country's Jewish citizens. I am Israeli myself and I honestly can't stand the fact that my country gladly accepts the moral and financial support of Diaspora Jews, but then says to these Jews that the State of Israel does not consider them Jewish because they belong to a non-Orthodox congregation. Such hypocrisy is beyond me. In fact, all non-Orthodox Jews in the Diaspora could conceivably withhold their support for Israel based on the fact that the way they practice Judaism is not accepted by the Jewish state, and this withdrawal of support would be legitimate. But of course, neither I nor any other person who values the continued existence of the Jewish nation would advocate such a boycott because we know how important Israel is to the present and the future of the Jewish people, despite its shortcomings.
Yes, I understand that many Jews are concerned about preserving Jewish identity. All peoples of the world are concerned with maintaining their identities, especially peoples whose very existence has been historically threatened. I still contend, however, that as Jews, we need to be less rigid about who we consider to be members of our community. So I reject the notion that to be Jewish is to shun everything that is not Jewish. Such intolerance and rigidity leads not to the continued growth and prosperity of a people, but rather to its demise. I point to the dwindling Samaritan community in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as a case in point. Because of their refusal to welcome others into their community and their refusal to be less rigid about who they consider to be members of their community, their ability to grow and replenish their population has been extremely impaired, even to the extent that birth defects among their people are becoming more and more common since the members of the sect refuse to intermarry. This is certainly not the future that we want for the Jewish people.
For those of you who are having a panic attack because you hear about growing rates of intermarriage and Jews with Christmas trees in their homes, your extreme anxiety is unwarranted, and I'll explain why. Some of you may be old enough to remember the when you were forced to say the Lord's Prayer in school and when saying, "Merry Christmas", was a lot more common than the more politically correct "Happy Holidays". Ask yourself, did saying the Lord's Prayer or partaking in the celebrations of another religion's holidays make you any less of a Jew? My mother recited the Lord's Prayer when she went to school. In fact, she even allowed the nannies who lived with us during my childhood to have a Christmas tree in our home, and she didn't have any issue taking me or my siblings to the mall during the holidays to sit on Santa's knee. Yet, my mother is a strong advocate of preserving Jewish traditions, whether that means celebrating Jewish holidays, like Passover and Rosh Hashana, or simply remembering to light candles on Friday nights. My point is that being immersed in other cultures and traditions does not have to make you less Jewish, unless of course you allow it to.
Also, contrary to what many Jews still believe, I do not feel that it is necessary to belong to a synagogue to maintain your Jewishness in the Diaspora. Yes, the synagogue is still a main focal point for Jewish communal life, but it certainly isn't the only one. There are countless Jewish clubs, societies, associations and other groups throughout the U.S. and Canada that Jews can be participate in if they want to feel part of the greater Jewish community. Hence, it is not necessary for a Jewish individual or family to spend a small fortune every year to be members of a synagogue.
In fact, I even think it is possible to be a Jew without being one from a religious aspect. Yes, that means I think it is possible for someone to be a Jew while adhering to another religion or without adhering to any religion at all. For those of you who are familiar with Jewish history, you know that in ancient times, Jews adhered to other religious traditions aside from their own and yet remained Jews in an ethnic and cultural sense. I should also mention that intermarriage was not shunned, even by our greatest leaders. King Solomon, for example, married the daughter of Egypt's Pharaoh to cement an alliance with his kingdom's southern neighbour. And let's not forget his famous love affair with the Queen of Sheba. Coming back to our own time, we should remember that many leaders and organizations in the Zionist movement shunned religious traditions and preferred to focus on the cultural aspects of being Jewish. So if our ancestors, both in the ancient and near past, could define being Jewish as something other than observing religious traditions, why can't we?
Don't get me wrong, I think being concerned about the continued existence of the Jewish people is perfectly reasonable. But the threats to our existence come from dictators who talk of wiping our country off the map and from terrorists and antisemites who attack us and our cultural and religious institutions, not from people who aren't going to synagogue enough or who marry non-Jewish spouses.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4488219,00.html
The headline is very unnerving, especially if you don't go on and read the whole article, which doesn't actually say that U.S. Jewry won't exist within the next generation, but rather that the majority of U.S. Jews will not be considered Jewish under the Halacha, or Jewish religious law. This law requires that a person have a Jewish mother for him or her to be considered Jewish. My immediate reaction to this impending reality is this: so what!?
Now, you may be asking why I'm so dismissive of this issue and why I'm not worried about the fate of U.S. Jewry (or Canadian Jewry for that matter). One reason is simply that the Jewish communities in both the U.S. and Canada have never been stronger and more vibrant. Only Israel has a larger Jewish community than the U.S. In fact, it was only a few years ago that Israel's Jewish population eclipsed that of American Jews.
Another reason is that in this day and age, I don't think we need rabbis telling us who is a Jew and who isn't, and I think there are many American (and Canadian) Jews who will agree with me on this. Unfortunately, there are still quite a few people that still think that there is only one way to be Jewish. This is particularly the case in Israel where Orthodox Judaism continues to retain a monopoly on the personal status of the country's Jewish citizens. I am Israeli myself and I honestly can't stand the fact that my country gladly accepts the moral and financial support of Diaspora Jews, but then says to these Jews that the State of Israel does not consider them Jewish because they belong to a non-Orthodox congregation. Such hypocrisy is beyond me. In fact, all non-Orthodox Jews in the Diaspora could conceivably withhold their support for Israel based on the fact that the way they practice Judaism is not accepted by the Jewish state, and this withdrawal of support would be legitimate. But of course, neither I nor any other person who values the continued existence of the Jewish nation would advocate such a boycott because we know how important Israel is to the present and the future of the Jewish people, despite its shortcomings.
Yes, I understand that many Jews are concerned about preserving Jewish identity. All peoples of the world are concerned with maintaining their identities, especially peoples whose very existence has been historically threatened. I still contend, however, that as Jews, we need to be less rigid about who we consider to be members of our community. So I reject the notion that to be Jewish is to shun everything that is not Jewish. Such intolerance and rigidity leads not to the continued growth and prosperity of a people, but rather to its demise. I point to the dwindling Samaritan community in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as a case in point. Because of their refusal to welcome others into their community and their refusal to be less rigid about who they consider to be members of their community, their ability to grow and replenish their population has been extremely impaired, even to the extent that birth defects among their people are becoming more and more common since the members of the sect refuse to intermarry. This is certainly not the future that we want for the Jewish people.
For those of you who are having a panic attack because you hear about growing rates of intermarriage and Jews with Christmas trees in their homes, your extreme anxiety is unwarranted, and I'll explain why. Some of you may be old enough to remember the when you were forced to say the Lord's Prayer in school and when saying, "Merry Christmas", was a lot more common than the more politically correct "Happy Holidays". Ask yourself, did saying the Lord's Prayer or partaking in the celebrations of another religion's holidays make you any less of a Jew? My mother recited the Lord's Prayer when she went to school. In fact, she even allowed the nannies who lived with us during my childhood to have a Christmas tree in our home, and she didn't have any issue taking me or my siblings to the mall during the holidays to sit on Santa's knee. Yet, my mother is a strong advocate of preserving Jewish traditions, whether that means celebrating Jewish holidays, like Passover and Rosh Hashana, or simply remembering to light candles on Friday nights. My point is that being immersed in other cultures and traditions does not have to make you less Jewish, unless of course you allow it to.
Also, contrary to what many Jews still believe, I do not feel that it is necessary to belong to a synagogue to maintain your Jewishness in the Diaspora. Yes, the synagogue is still a main focal point for Jewish communal life, but it certainly isn't the only one. There are countless Jewish clubs, societies, associations and other groups throughout the U.S. and Canada that Jews can be participate in if they want to feel part of the greater Jewish community. Hence, it is not necessary for a Jewish individual or family to spend a small fortune every year to be members of a synagogue.
In fact, I even think it is possible to be a Jew without being one from a religious aspect. Yes, that means I think it is possible for someone to be a Jew while adhering to another religion or without adhering to any religion at all. For those of you who are familiar with Jewish history, you know that in ancient times, Jews adhered to other religious traditions aside from their own and yet remained Jews in an ethnic and cultural sense. I should also mention that intermarriage was not shunned, even by our greatest leaders. King Solomon, for example, married the daughter of Egypt's Pharaoh to cement an alliance with his kingdom's southern neighbour. And let's not forget his famous love affair with the Queen of Sheba. Coming back to our own time, we should remember that many leaders and organizations in the Zionist movement shunned religious traditions and preferred to focus on the cultural aspects of being Jewish. So if our ancestors, both in the ancient and near past, could define being Jewish as something other than observing religious traditions, why can't we?
Don't get me wrong, I think being concerned about the continued existence of the Jewish people is perfectly reasonable. But the threats to our existence come from dictators who talk of wiping our country off the map and from terrorists and antisemites who attack us and our cultural and religious institutions, not from people who aren't going to synagogue enough or who marry non-Jewish spouses.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
De-constructing Multi-Ethnic States and Creating Real Nation-States: My Personal Take on Redrawing International Borders
After World War I, the victorious Allies decided to do some tinkering with the map of Europe. They dismantled the Austro-Hungarian Empire and created the new, largely homogenous nation-states of Austria and Hungary. This was a smart move on the part of the Allies as they erased from the map of Europe a country that was united only by the imperial domination of several different peoples, Austrians, Hungarians, Serbs and so forth. Unfortunately, Europe's great powers, Britain and France, did not apply the same treatment to their newly-acquired territories in the Middle East, not to mention the colonial territories that they already held throughout the rest of the world. Britain and France divided the territories of the former Ottoman Empire amongst themselves, creating what would become the artificial states of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan while holding onto their colonies in Africa and Asia.
Today, most of the territory in Africa, the Middle East and Asia are beset by armed conflict, poverty, hunger and hopelessness. As I stated in my last blog, Multi-Ethnic States: Disasters Waiting to Happen, the best possible outcome for countries made up of many competing groups is very likely the partition of territory amongst those groups. Hence, part of cleaning up the mess that European colonial powers made of much of the world is de-constructing the artificial borders that they drew and creating nation-states composed of stable majorities of like peoples. Below, I outline my own vision of what I think should take place in various countries and territories.
----------
Africa:
A new Tuareg Nation-State
The Tuaregs are a people spread far throughout western Africa. Their territories include much of southern Algeria, northern Mali, northern Niger and a small part of southwest Libya. So I would propose that a new Tuareg state be created and comprised of all of these territories in which they are the majority.
Nigeria
Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa and has countless different ethnic groups, but it is three particular groups, the Yoruba, the Hausa-Fulani and the Igbo which are largest groups in the country and together make up the majority. In this case, I would propose a three-way partition of the country: Yorubaland in the southwest, Hausaland in the north, and Biafra in the southeast. Hausaland may even take what is left of Niger, Nigeria's northern neighbour, after the Tuaregs have taken the north of it as part of their state. By the way, I did not just create names out of the blue for these three new states. Yorubaland and Hausaland are the traditional geographic names of the southwest and northern regions respectively. Biafra is the name that the Igbo people gave their newly formed country as they tried to break away from Nigeria in the 1960s. But of course, the Nigerians eventually crushed the revolt and Biafra no longer exists - accept in the hopes and dreams of Igbo people who still yearn for independence.
Sudan - A Partition Still in the Making
Sudan's long civil war ended only once the country's government, dominated by Arab northerners, finally allowed the predominantly black, Christian and animist south to break away. Unfortunately, however, conflict is still raging in both Sudan and South Sudan. The former must be partitioned even further to allow the Beja people of the country's coast the right to independence. I would say the same goes in regards to the Fur people of the western Darfur region and the Nubian people who live in the north of the country and across the border with Egypt, however, I am unsure if states that are viable from an economic standpoint could be created for these two groups. In the new country of South Sudan, the two main ethnic groups, the Dinka and Nuer, are fighting each other, both under the leadership of two men jockeying for control of the whole country. To the best of my knowledge, a partition of South Sudan between these two warring groups is not possible because they are both scattered in different pockets of the country. Finally, the border between north Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan is still in dispute and the people living along the border should have the final say on which country they want to be part of.
The Horn of Africa: Somalia and Ethiopia
Somalia has been without an effective government for the whole country since the early 1990s. Somalis in the northwest of the country have declared their independence in their own state that they call Somaliland. But although Somaliland has a government that is stable, at least by African standards, the international community refuses to recognize it. This, I believe, must change. The international community and the West in particular should give up the illusion of a united Somalia and accept the right of the people of Somaliland to independence. As for Ethiopia, although it is the only country in Africa whose borders were not drawn up by European colonial powers, it is still a multi-ethnic empire that should be dismantled should the people desire. The Oromo, Afar, Amharic and Somali peoples that are all seemingly united under the Ethiopian flag, should all have the right to self-determination.
Morocco and South Sahara
Spain should return the remaining enclaves that they have in Morocco back to the Moroccan people. South Sahara (the former Spanish Sahara) should be granted independence.
The Middle East:
Kurdistan
The Kurds are as far-flung in the Middle East as the Tuareg are in western Africa. Kurdish territory comprises southeastern Turkey, northeast Syria, northern Iraq and parts of northern Iran. All this territory should become part of the new nation-state of Kurdistan. Again, this is not a name I invented, but rather the name given by the Kurds to all the territory in the Middle East in which they are a majority.
Iraq
Under Ottoman rule, what is now Iraq was divided into three provinces: the northern province of Mosul, the central province of Baghdad and the southern province of Basra. I would propose that Iraq again be divided three ways so that northern Iraq would become part of Kurdistan, central Iraq would become an independent Sunni Arab state, and southern Iraq would become an independent Shiite Arab state. Ideally, I would also like to see an independent state of Assyria in northern Iraq for the Iraqi Christians, but I doubt that the Christians in northern Iraq have enough numbers and territory to form their own state.
Iran
Iran was once called Persia, but despite the name change, the Persians still dominate the country even though they are not an overall majority within it. Northern Iran is dominated by Kurds and Azerbaijanis, so I would recommend that the part of it that is mostly populated by Kurds go to Kurdistan and the other part dominated by Azerbaijanis be allowed to unite with their kinsmen across the border in the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan. In southwestern Iran, Khuzestan is a province that is predominantly Arab and should be given the option of independence or a union with their fellow Shiite Arabs in what is now southern Iraq. Another possible candidate for independence is the mostly Arab province of Hormuzgan along Iran's southern coast. Lastly, the Baluchi of the southeastern province of Baluchistan must be given independence and the chance to unify with their fellow Baluchis across the border in Pakistan; not as part of Pakistan, but as part of a nation-state of Baluchistan that is free of both Iranian and Pakistani domination.
Syria
The current civil war in Syria is about more than just a fragmented opposition fighting a ruthless dictator in Bashar Al-Assad. Assad's power base is the Alawite Muslim population that dominate the Syrian coastal region of Latakia. The rest of Syria is divided amongst Kurds in the extreme northeast, Druze in the south and Sunni Arabs in the rest of the country. It is along these lines that Syria should be broken up - an independent Druze state in the south of the country, an independent Alawite Muslim state in Latakia and an independent Sunni Arab state in the rest of Syria's territory, except for the Kurdish territory of the northeast which would be part of Kurdistan. I left out Syria's sizable Christian community, but only because they do not form a majority in any significant part of Syria's territory that would allow them to create a state of their own.
Palestine
I believe that a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still achievable and is much better than the alternative bi-national, one-state solution proposed by radicals on both sides. The Palestinians will obviously get to keep the entire Gaza Strip as part of their new state and receive most of the West Bank as well. I believe that any deal over the new borders in what is now the West Bank should include the biggest Jewish communities in the disputed territory. In exchange, the Palestinians should be given the so-called Arab Triangle adjacent to the northwestern part of the green line where Arabs are the dominant population. It's basically just a matter of swapping territory so that Jews live in the Jewish state and Arabs live in the Arab state. Such a land swap has already been proposed and discussed.
Saudi Arabia and Yemen
Ultimately, I believe that the people of South Yemen should be given the right to decide whether to remain united with the north or be independent as they once were. In Saudi Arabia, the Shiites along the northeastern coast of the country also deserve the right to self-determination.
Asia:
China
If justice is served, the peoples of Tibet, East Turkestan (now the northwest Chinese province of Xinjiang) and Manchuria will all regain their independence. Inner Mongolia must have the right to break away from Chinese rule and reunite with their kinsmen in the republic of Mongolia.
Sri Lanka
The Tamils of the north and eastern parts of Sri Lanka should be given their independence in a new state of Tamil Eelam.
Thailand
The south of Thailand was once an independent Islamic sultanate and should be allowed the opportunity to regain its independence.
Indonesia
West Papua, the Indonesian-controlled part of the island of New Guinea, should be given its independence or the chance to unite with their fellow Papuan kinsmen in Papua New Guinea.
Philippines
The southern, mainly Muslim island of Mindanao should be given the right to independence from the Philippines, which is overwhelmingly Catholic.
Europe:
Western Europe
Regions like Catalonia, the Basque Country, Brittany, Corsica and Alsace should be given the right to self-determination and the chance to be become full member states of the European Union. Gibraltar is occupied Spanish territory and should be returned to Spain.
Kosovo
Serbs are still the majority in the northeastern part of the country and should have the right to reunite themselves and their territory with Serbia.
Ukraine
As long as the Ukrainian speaking west and the Russian-speaking east remain united, there will never be a peaceful solution to the problems in this country, so it would be best that the Russian speakers of the east be allowed to choose independence or a union with Russia. The Ukrainians of the west would then be free to pursue European integration.
Russia
In my humble opinion, Russia is not justified in holding any territory east of the Ural Mountains. It is conquered territory and the peoples of these lands should have the right to self-determination, as should the peoples of the Caucuses. The northern region of Karelia should be returned to Finland.
North America:
Canada and the United States:
All aboriginal nations in both Canada and the U.S. should have the right to self-determination, whether that includes limited self-government or outright independence. I applaud Canada for twice allowing Quebecers to vote on independence. This is a model that should be followed throughout the world.
Mexico
The mainly Mayan south should have the right to secede from the rest of Mexico and create an independent Mayan state. Poverty is rife all over Mexico, but more so in the Mayan-dominated south than in the north. The latter controls the economy and is dominated mainly by whites and people of mixed ancestry.
----------
What I have outlined above is obviously limited by what I know about the different peoples of the world, as well as my knowledge of autonomy and independence movements. I am simply making suggestions, so if you, the reader, have any problem with what I've recommended, or you believe that I don't have all my facts straight, I hope you will tell me. It is ultimately up to the peoples concerned to decide their fate - or at least it should be up to them. My overall point is that a world made up of nation-states composed mostly of like peoples would probably be a much more peaceful and prosperous world than the one we live in today, full of artificial countries where competing groups jostle for power and leave carnage in their wake. It is these internal quarrels that comprise most of today's armed conflicts, so instead of trying to keep countries together that were never meant to be in the first place, perhaps we should try asking the peoples of those countries whether they would like to continue living together or would prefer to live apart. I believe that people need to learn to live separately in peace before they can learn to live together in peace.
Today, most of the territory in Africa, the Middle East and Asia are beset by armed conflict, poverty, hunger and hopelessness. As I stated in my last blog, Multi-Ethnic States: Disasters Waiting to Happen, the best possible outcome for countries made up of many competing groups is very likely the partition of territory amongst those groups. Hence, part of cleaning up the mess that European colonial powers made of much of the world is de-constructing the artificial borders that they drew and creating nation-states composed of stable majorities of like peoples. Below, I outline my own vision of what I think should take place in various countries and territories.
----------
Africa:
A new Tuareg Nation-State
The Tuaregs are a people spread far throughout western Africa. Their territories include much of southern Algeria, northern Mali, northern Niger and a small part of southwest Libya. So I would propose that a new Tuareg state be created and comprised of all of these territories in which they are the majority.
Nigeria
Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa and has countless different ethnic groups, but it is three particular groups, the Yoruba, the Hausa-Fulani and the Igbo which are largest groups in the country and together make up the majority. In this case, I would propose a three-way partition of the country: Yorubaland in the southwest, Hausaland in the north, and Biafra in the southeast. Hausaland may even take what is left of Niger, Nigeria's northern neighbour, after the Tuaregs have taken the north of it as part of their state. By the way, I did not just create names out of the blue for these three new states. Yorubaland and Hausaland are the traditional geographic names of the southwest and northern regions respectively. Biafra is the name that the Igbo people gave their newly formed country as they tried to break away from Nigeria in the 1960s. But of course, the Nigerians eventually crushed the revolt and Biafra no longer exists - accept in the hopes and dreams of Igbo people who still yearn for independence.
Sudan - A Partition Still in the Making
Sudan's long civil war ended only once the country's government, dominated by Arab northerners, finally allowed the predominantly black, Christian and animist south to break away. Unfortunately, however, conflict is still raging in both Sudan and South Sudan. The former must be partitioned even further to allow the Beja people of the country's coast the right to independence. I would say the same goes in regards to the Fur people of the western Darfur region and the Nubian people who live in the north of the country and across the border with Egypt, however, I am unsure if states that are viable from an economic standpoint could be created for these two groups. In the new country of South Sudan, the two main ethnic groups, the Dinka and Nuer, are fighting each other, both under the leadership of two men jockeying for control of the whole country. To the best of my knowledge, a partition of South Sudan between these two warring groups is not possible because they are both scattered in different pockets of the country. Finally, the border between north Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan is still in dispute and the people living along the border should have the final say on which country they want to be part of.
The Horn of Africa: Somalia and Ethiopia
Somalia has been without an effective government for the whole country since the early 1990s. Somalis in the northwest of the country have declared their independence in their own state that they call Somaliland. But although Somaliland has a government that is stable, at least by African standards, the international community refuses to recognize it. This, I believe, must change. The international community and the West in particular should give up the illusion of a united Somalia and accept the right of the people of Somaliland to independence. As for Ethiopia, although it is the only country in Africa whose borders were not drawn up by European colonial powers, it is still a multi-ethnic empire that should be dismantled should the people desire. The Oromo, Afar, Amharic and Somali peoples that are all seemingly united under the Ethiopian flag, should all have the right to self-determination.
Morocco and South Sahara
Spain should return the remaining enclaves that they have in Morocco back to the Moroccan people. South Sahara (the former Spanish Sahara) should be granted independence.
The Middle East:
Kurdistan
The Kurds are as far-flung in the Middle East as the Tuareg are in western Africa. Kurdish territory comprises southeastern Turkey, northeast Syria, northern Iraq and parts of northern Iran. All this territory should become part of the new nation-state of Kurdistan. Again, this is not a name I invented, but rather the name given by the Kurds to all the territory in the Middle East in which they are a majority.
Iraq
Under Ottoman rule, what is now Iraq was divided into three provinces: the northern province of Mosul, the central province of Baghdad and the southern province of Basra. I would propose that Iraq again be divided three ways so that northern Iraq would become part of Kurdistan, central Iraq would become an independent Sunni Arab state, and southern Iraq would become an independent Shiite Arab state. Ideally, I would also like to see an independent state of Assyria in northern Iraq for the Iraqi Christians, but I doubt that the Christians in northern Iraq have enough numbers and territory to form their own state.
Iran
Iran was once called Persia, but despite the name change, the Persians still dominate the country even though they are not an overall majority within it. Northern Iran is dominated by Kurds and Azerbaijanis, so I would recommend that the part of it that is mostly populated by Kurds go to Kurdistan and the other part dominated by Azerbaijanis be allowed to unite with their kinsmen across the border in the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan. In southwestern Iran, Khuzestan is a province that is predominantly Arab and should be given the option of independence or a union with their fellow Shiite Arabs in what is now southern Iraq. Another possible candidate for independence is the mostly Arab province of Hormuzgan along Iran's southern coast. Lastly, the Baluchi of the southeastern province of Baluchistan must be given independence and the chance to unify with their fellow Baluchis across the border in Pakistan; not as part of Pakistan, but as part of a nation-state of Baluchistan that is free of both Iranian and Pakistani domination.
Syria
The current civil war in Syria is about more than just a fragmented opposition fighting a ruthless dictator in Bashar Al-Assad. Assad's power base is the Alawite Muslim population that dominate the Syrian coastal region of Latakia. The rest of Syria is divided amongst Kurds in the extreme northeast, Druze in the south and Sunni Arabs in the rest of the country. It is along these lines that Syria should be broken up - an independent Druze state in the south of the country, an independent Alawite Muslim state in Latakia and an independent Sunni Arab state in the rest of Syria's territory, except for the Kurdish territory of the northeast which would be part of Kurdistan. I left out Syria's sizable Christian community, but only because they do not form a majority in any significant part of Syria's territory that would allow them to create a state of their own.
Palestine
I believe that a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still achievable and is much better than the alternative bi-national, one-state solution proposed by radicals on both sides. The Palestinians will obviously get to keep the entire Gaza Strip as part of their new state and receive most of the West Bank as well. I believe that any deal over the new borders in what is now the West Bank should include the biggest Jewish communities in the disputed territory. In exchange, the Palestinians should be given the so-called Arab Triangle adjacent to the northwestern part of the green line where Arabs are the dominant population. It's basically just a matter of swapping territory so that Jews live in the Jewish state and Arabs live in the Arab state. Such a land swap has already been proposed and discussed.
Saudi Arabia and Yemen
Ultimately, I believe that the people of South Yemen should be given the right to decide whether to remain united with the north or be independent as they once were. In Saudi Arabia, the Shiites along the northeastern coast of the country also deserve the right to self-determination.
Asia:
China
If justice is served, the peoples of Tibet, East Turkestan (now the northwest Chinese province of Xinjiang) and Manchuria will all regain their independence. Inner Mongolia must have the right to break away from Chinese rule and reunite with their kinsmen in the republic of Mongolia.
Sri Lanka
The Tamils of the north and eastern parts of Sri Lanka should be given their independence in a new state of Tamil Eelam.
Thailand
The south of Thailand was once an independent Islamic sultanate and should be allowed the opportunity to regain its independence.
Indonesia
West Papua, the Indonesian-controlled part of the island of New Guinea, should be given its independence or the chance to unite with their fellow Papuan kinsmen in Papua New Guinea.
Philippines
The southern, mainly Muslim island of Mindanao should be given the right to independence from the Philippines, which is overwhelmingly Catholic.
Europe:
Western Europe
Regions like Catalonia, the Basque Country, Brittany, Corsica and Alsace should be given the right to self-determination and the chance to be become full member states of the European Union. Gibraltar is occupied Spanish territory and should be returned to Spain.
Kosovo
Serbs are still the majority in the northeastern part of the country and should have the right to reunite themselves and their territory with Serbia.
Ukraine
As long as the Ukrainian speaking west and the Russian-speaking east remain united, there will never be a peaceful solution to the problems in this country, so it would be best that the Russian speakers of the east be allowed to choose independence or a union with Russia. The Ukrainians of the west would then be free to pursue European integration.
Russia
In my humble opinion, Russia is not justified in holding any territory east of the Ural Mountains. It is conquered territory and the peoples of these lands should have the right to self-determination, as should the peoples of the Caucuses. The northern region of Karelia should be returned to Finland.
North America:
Canada and the United States:
All aboriginal nations in both Canada and the U.S. should have the right to self-determination, whether that includes limited self-government or outright independence. I applaud Canada for twice allowing Quebecers to vote on independence. This is a model that should be followed throughout the world.
Mexico
The mainly Mayan south should have the right to secede from the rest of Mexico and create an independent Mayan state. Poverty is rife all over Mexico, but more so in the Mayan-dominated south than in the north. The latter controls the economy and is dominated mainly by whites and people of mixed ancestry.
----------
What I have outlined above is obviously limited by what I know about the different peoples of the world, as well as my knowledge of autonomy and independence movements. I am simply making suggestions, so if you, the reader, have any problem with what I've recommended, or you believe that I don't have all my facts straight, I hope you will tell me. It is ultimately up to the peoples concerned to decide their fate - or at least it should be up to them. My overall point is that a world made up of nation-states composed mostly of like peoples would probably be a much more peaceful and prosperous world than the one we live in today, full of artificial countries where competing groups jostle for power and leave carnage in their wake. It is these internal quarrels that comprise most of today's armed conflicts, so instead of trying to keep countries together that were never meant to be in the first place, perhaps we should try asking the peoples of those countries whether they would like to continue living together or would prefer to live apart. I believe that people need to learn to live separately in peace before they can learn to live together in peace.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Multi-ethnic States: Disasters Waiting to Happen
For any nation-state to endure and succeed, it needs a sense of identity and purpose. This is much easier to establish if the people in the nation-state in question have certain things in common, such as language, history, religion, values and customs. I would argue that most nation-states that have most or all of these common characteristics are usually successful, while nation-states that have few or none of these characteristics are usually doomed to fail.
If you look on the globe at the countries where most violent internal conflicts occur, you will notice that most of them are multi-ethnic states - in other words, states in which there is no one ethnic group that forms a majority of the population. For the most part, states like these are usually not the product of popular will, but rather the product of imperialism, colonialism and conquest, mostly done in the name of European colonial powers who would routinely carve up the territory that they conquered without regard for the local population. The ultimate result after the colonial era had ended was the creation of countries composed of several, often countless groups of peoples who had no affinity for each other and who were never meant to live together in the same nation-state. Today, many of these countries are what are sometimes referred to as "failed states" - countries without effective governance beset by armed conflict, poverty, disease, famine and destitution.
Ironically, however, the most successful nation-sate in today's world is itself a multi-ethnic state. I speak, of course, of the United States of America. What began as a loose federation of British colonies eventually became the vast empire that it is today. It boasts the greatest military in the history of humankind and its economy has been the dominant force in the world for the better part of a century. Yet, the U.S. may suffer the same fate that befell its former rival, the Soviet Union, or other empires before it, simply because of its multi-ethnic character.
Like most multi-ethnic states, the U.S. has what I like to call a "core group". That is, a certain ethnic group that does not make up the majority of the population, but does hold most of the power in the country. In the U.S., the core group is made up of white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or WASPS as they are often called in a derogatory sense. These are the descendants of America's "Founding Fathers", the people who broke away from their fellow countrymen in Britain to form their own nation. Today, this core group continues to be the dominant sector in American society, but its dominance is slowly waning in the face of America's growing multiculturalism, which has seen and will continue to see groups of visible minorities become the majority in many parts of the country. These visible minorities, specifically blacks, Latinos and native Americans, form the majority of America's underclass. Hence, in the future, I would not be surprised if these groups, having had enough of being exploited and dominated by the core group, try to break away from the American empire, eventually leading to a situation in which the U.S. is broken up into ethnic and racial mini-states and fiefdoms - a situation that would be similar to the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.
The situation in Canada is similar though different in the sense that there are two core groups, namely Canadians of British descent and those of French descent, which have fought each other for supremacy since European settlement began. This struggle was further complicated when under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, Canada adopted the ideology of multiculturalism. Trudeau meant to create a more inclusive Canadian identity with his new policy of multiculturalism. Ironically, however, he may have given Canada a death sentence, because although the new ideology has made it easier to accept anyone as a Canadian regardless of their race, religion or cultural background, it has also been increasingly used as an excuse for not integrating into Canadian society, not learning the official languages and not conforming to certain values that are consistent with a modern, democratic country. The philosophy of multiculturalism has also given a new sense of urgency to the Quebec independence movement. From Bill 101 in the late 1970s to the recently proposed Charter of Values, Quebec nationalists have done everything they can to prevent the Quebecois nation from being diluted into Canada's new multicultural mosaic. There is, however, some good news. If Canada does come apart, it will probably not do so violently. Quebec will simply break away from English-speaking Canada, leaving the two solitudes to go their separate ways in very much the same way Czechoslovakia split into two states in what was called the "Velvet Divorce". As for the rest of Canada, it may yet survive if it can hold onto its democratic values as well as its social values that will keep it from being absorbed by the United States.
Just to be clear, I do believe that people of different races, cultures, religions, languages, etc. can live together in the same country, but this is conditional upon building a national identity that is based on common values and interests rather than ethnicity, religion and so forth. Switzerland, for example, is a multilingual federation that has existed for centuries because the Swiss have come together and stayed together based on shared interests and values. And believe it or not, any nation-state that manages to forge a national identity that isn't based on blood or some other primordial characteristic has a chance to survive and thrive. This includes countries like the United States and Canada. The problem is that creating a sense of identity that doesn't involve the colour of one's skin or the language one speaks is extremely difficult. It requires a lot of time, good leadership and the ability to educate the populous so that they buy into the national identity that the country's leaders strive to create. Unfortunately, I cannot see this happening in most multi-ethnic states.
For the vast majority of countries that do not have a national identity based on ethnicity, religion, language, etc., the best possible outcome is probably a partition amongst the competing groups in question. In Iraq, for example, there does not appear to be anyone or anything that can unite the people of that country, who were only united forcibly under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. It would be best, therefore, to partition the country into three separate states; one for each of the three main competing groups: Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs and Kurds. I would not think for a second that doing this would solve all the problems in the area, but I believe that it is a necessary step.
This kind of partition is possible in many multi-ethnic states, but unfortunately not all. There are cases where partition is simply not possible because in some countries, different competing groups are not concentrated in specific places that make it easy to draw borders between them. Lebanon, for example, is a country rocked by divisions between competing religious sects. But unlike Czechoslovakia, which was neatly split between the Czechs and Slovaks with clearly defined borders, Lebanon does not have clearly demarcated, contiguous territories controlled by its different sects that would allow a tidy partition of the country. In other words, the country's people are simply too mixed up to allocate a territory to each competing sect. This leaves Lebanon with no other option but to allow the violence within its borders to continue until someone or something can facilitate the creation of a new national identity that overrides sectarian divisions. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening any time soon.
As for the United States, its collapse would probably bring about an upheaval that would rival the fall of the Roman Empire. I believe that the country can avoid this upheaval, but first, the American people have a decision to make: do they want to alleviate the grievances of the country's underclass even if it means that they will no longer be a global superpower, or do they want to remain a global superpower even if it means that the American underclass could rise up and bring about the fall of the American empire and the country itself? If the American people choose the former, they may yet save their beloved republic because tending to the grievances of the underclass, which as I said is dominated by the black, Latino and native American racial minorities, will bring about a more inclusive American identity. But if they choose the latter, their country could soon resemble the killing fields of the former Yugoslavia - on a much bigger and more brutal scale.
If you look on the globe at the countries where most violent internal conflicts occur, you will notice that most of them are multi-ethnic states - in other words, states in which there is no one ethnic group that forms a majority of the population. For the most part, states like these are usually not the product of popular will, but rather the product of imperialism, colonialism and conquest, mostly done in the name of European colonial powers who would routinely carve up the territory that they conquered without regard for the local population. The ultimate result after the colonial era had ended was the creation of countries composed of several, often countless groups of peoples who had no affinity for each other and who were never meant to live together in the same nation-state. Today, many of these countries are what are sometimes referred to as "failed states" - countries without effective governance beset by armed conflict, poverty, disease, famine and destitution.
Ironically, however, the most successful nation-sate in today's world is itself a multi-ethnic state. I speak, of course, of the United States of America. What began as a loose federation of British colonies eventually became the vast empire that it is today. It boasts the greatest military in the history of humankind and its economy has been the dominant force in the world for the better part of a century. Yet, the U.S. may suffer the same fate that befell its former rival, the Soviet Union, or other empires before it, simply because of its multi-ethnic character.
Like most multi-ethnic states, the U.S. has what I like to call a "core group". That is, a certain ethnic group that does not make up the majority of the population, but does hold most of the power in the country. In the U.S., the core group is made up of white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or WASPS as they are often called in a derogatory sense. These are the descendants of America's "Founding Fathers", the people who broke away from their fellow countrymen in Britain to form their own nation. Today, this core group continues to be the dominant sector in American society, but its dominance is slowly waning in the face of America's growing multiculturalism, which has seen and will continue to see groups of visible minorities become the majority in many parts of the country. These visible minorities, specifically blacks, Latinos and native Americans, form the majority of America's underclass. Hence, in the future, I would not be surprised if these groups, having had enough of being exploited and dominated by the core group, try to break away from the American empire, eventually leading to a situation in which the U.S. is broken up into ethnic and racial mini-states and fiefdoms - a situation that would be similar to the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.
The situation in Canada is similar though different in the sense that there are two core groups, namely Canadians of British descent and those of French descent, which have fought each other for supremacy since European settlement began. This struggle was further complicated when under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, Canada adopted the ideology of multiculturalism. Trudeau meant to create a more inclusive Canadian identity with his new policy of multiculturalism. Ironically, however, he may have given Canada a death sentence, because although the new ideology has made it easier to accept anyone as a Canadian regardless of their race, religion or cultural background, it has also been increasingly used as an excuse for not integrating into Canadian society, not learning the official languages and not conforming to certain values that are consistent with a modern, democratic country. The philosophy of multiculturalism has also given a new sense of urgency to the Quebec independence movement. From Bill 101 in the late 1970s to the recently proposed Charter of Values, Quebec nationalists have done everything they can to prevent the Quebecois nation from being diluted into Canada's new multicultural mosaic. There is, however, some good news. If Canada does come apart, it will probably not do so violently. Quebec will simply break away from English-speaking Canada, leaving the two solitudes to go their separate ways in very much the same way Czechoslovakia split into two states in what was called the "Velvet Divorce". As for the rest of Canada, it may yet survive if it can hold onto its democratic values as well as its social values that will keep it from being absorbed by the United States.
Just to be clear, I do believe that people of different races, cultures, religions, languages, etc. can live together in the same country, but this is conditional upon building a national identity that is based on common values and interests rather than ethnicity, religion and so forth. Switzerland, for example, is a multilingual federation that has existed for centuries because the Swiss have come together and stayed together based on shared interests and values. And believe it or not, any nation-state that manages to forge a national identity that isn't based on blood or some other primordial characteristic has a chance to survive and thrive. This includes countries like the United States and Canada. The problem is that creating a sense of identity that doesn't involve the colour of one's skin or the language one speaks is extremely difficult. It requires a lot of time, good leadership and the ability to educate the populous so that they buy into the national identity that the country's leaders strive to create. Unfortunately, I cannot see this happening in most multi-ethnic states.
For the vast majority of countries that do not have a national identity based on ethnicity, religion, language, etc., the best possible outcome is probably a partition amongst the competing groups in question. In Iraq, for example, there does not appear to be anyone or anything that can unite the people of that country, who were only united forcibly under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. It would be best, therefore, to partition the country into three separate states; one for each of the three main competing groups: Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs and Kurds. I would not think for a second that doing this would solve all the problems in the area, but I believe that it is a necessary step.
This kind of partition is possible in many multi-ethnic states, but unfortunately not all. There are cases where partition is simply not possible because in some countries, different competing groups are not concentrated in specific places that make it easy to draw borders between them. Lebanon, for example, is a country rocked by divisions between competing religious sects. But unlike Czechoslovakia, which was neatly split between the Czechs and Slovaks with clearly defined borders, Lebanon does not have clearly demarcated, contiguous territories controlled by its different sects that would allow a tidy partition of the country. In other words, the country's people are simply too mixed up to allocate a territory to each competing sect. This leaves Lebanon with no other option but to allow the violence within its borders to continue until someone or something can facilitate the creation of a new national identity that overrides sectarian divisions. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening any time soon.
As for the United States, its collapse would probably bring about an upheaval that would rival the fall of the Roman Empire. I believe that the country can avoid this upheaval, but first, the American people have a decision to make: do they want to alleviate the grievances of the country's underclass even if it means that they will no longer be a global superpower, or do they want to remain a global superpower even if it means that the American underclass could rise up and bring about the fall of the American empire and the country itself? If the American people choose the former, they may yet save their beloved republic because tending to the grievances of the underclass, which as I said is dominated by the black, Latino and native American racial minorities, will bring about a more inclusive American identity. But if they choose the latter, their country could soon resemble the killing fields of the former Yugoslavia - on a much bigger and more brutal scale.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Israeli Settlers: Motivated by Ideology or Dollars and Cents?
If you follow the saga that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then you know that one of the longstanding issues of the conflict is the fate of the communities that Israel has built in the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the end of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. As we all know, Israel unilaterally evacuated all of its citizens from the Gaza Strip in 2005. But there are still hundreds of thousands of Israelis living in the West Bank and the Palestinians want them out, too.
The image that the media, including Israel's own press, likes to paint of these people is usually one of religious fanatics - men with knitted kipot, long beards and side-locks; very conservatively-dressed women and young families with many children who want nothing more than to cleanse the entire Arab population from the Land of Israel from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea. The media also likes to paint these people as foreign colonists, so whenever they report from a Jewish community in the so-called occupied territories, they usually pick out the first person they can find who has an American accent and seems as if he or she just got off the plane from New York. Indeed, the English-speaking press uses the term, "settler", to imply that Jews who live in the West Bank, or who used to live in the Gaza Strip, are not native to the land and are just like the first European settlers who went on to found the United States and Canada. As usual, when it comes to anything to do with Israel, the Palestinians, or the Middle East, the media just doesn't get it. For one thing, they automatically assume that Israelis who live in the West Bank are there because they see living there as the fulfillment of a Biblical promise to restore the lands of Judea and Samaria to the Jewish people. But this is not the case with many if not most so-called settlers.
Contrary to media stereotypes, most of the Israelis who live in the West Bank are not religious fanatics bent on driving out the Palestinians. In fact, many of them are living there, not for religious reasons, but for economic ones. It's simply a matter of what kind of lifestyle a family wants to have or can afford. Take, for example, the housing market in our own Greater Toronto Area. If you are at all familiar with housing trends in the GTA, you know that prices in Toronto have skyrocketed over the last few years, so the closer to downtown you want to be, the more you'll have to shell out to buy a home. If you want to live downtown, chances are that you'll be living in a condo that feels more like a shoebox - not very practical if you're planning on raising a family. So what's the alternative for those of us who want a single family home but aren't multimillionaires? Suburbia, of course, which in the GTA used to mean places like North York, Etobicoke or Scarborough - but not anymore. Now, what we call suburbia is more like York Region, Mississauga or Brampton.
These housing market trends have also made their way to Israel. Where it was once possible for an average Israeli family to own a home in established neighbourhoods in cities like Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, it is now no longer affordable. Hence, for Israeli citizens hoping to raise a family, the only alternative has been to migrate to more peripheral communities. But just as North York and Etobicoke became increasingly unaffordable, so too did cities like the Tel Aviv suburb of Raanana and the Jerusalem suburb of Mevasseret Zion. Now, with most established communities out of reach, the newer communities in places like Ariel and Gush Etzion, both located in the West Bank, are looking more and more attractive, not to mention the fact that since 1967, successive Israeli governments have used various financial incentives to encourage Israeli citizens to move to new towns and villages in the West Bank. Many of these new towns and villages sport the same kind of urban landscape that you would find in Thornhill, Mississauga or any other suburb of Toronto - nice, big single-family homes with private driveways and backyards - perfect for a young couple looking to settle down and raise a family.
Yes, there are folks within the Israeli settlement population that see living in the West Bank as their Biblical birthright and who do not want to share the land with their Palestinian neighbours, but they are the minority, NOT the majority. Hence, I don't see any reason why the media should present these people to their audience any differently than they would present an average Toronto family that chooses to move to Thornhill to get more house for less money.
The image that the media, including Israel's own press, likes to paint of these people is usually one of religious fanatics - men with knitted kipot, long beards and side-locks; very conservatively-dressed women and young families with many children who want nothing more than to cleanse the entire Arab population from the Land of Israel from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea. The media also likes to paint these people as foreign colonists, so whenever they report from a Jewish community in the so-called occupied territories, they usually pick out the first person they can find who has an American accent and seems as if he or she just got off the plane from New York. Indeed, the English-speaking press uses the term, "settler", to imply that Jews who live in the West Bank, or who used to live in the Gaza Strip, are not native to the land and are just like the first European settlers who went on to found the United States and Canada. As usual, when it comes to anything to do with Israel, the Palestinians, or the Middle East, the media just doesn't get it. For one thing, they automatically assume that Israelis who live in the West Bank are there because they see living there as the fulfillment of a Biblical promise to restore the lands of Judea and Samaria to the Jewish people. But this is not the case with many if not most so-called settlers.
Contrary to media stereotypes, most of the Israelis who live in the West Bank are not religious fanatics bent on driving out the Palestinians. In fact, many of them are living there, not for religious reasons, but for economic ones. It's simply a matter of what kind of lifestyle a family wants to have or can afford. Take, for example, the housing market in our own Greater Toronto Area. If you are at all familiar with housing trends in the GTA, you know that prices in Toronto have skyrocketed over the last few years, so the closer to downtown you want to be, the more you'll have to shell out to buy a home. If you want to live downtown, chances are that you'll be living in a condo that feels more like a shoebox - not very practical if you're planning on raising a family. So what's the alternative for those of us who want a single family home but aren't multimillionaires? Suburbia, of course, which in the GTA used to mean places like North York, Etobicoke or Scarborough - but not anymore. Now, what we call suburbia is more like York Region, Mississauga or Brampton.
These housing market trends have also made their way to Israel. Where it was once possible for an average Israeli family to own a home in established neighbourhoods in cities like Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, it is now no longer affordable. Hence, for Israeli citizens hoping to raise a family, the only alternative has been to migrate to more peripheral communities. But just as North York and Etobicoke became increasingly unaffordable, so too did cities like the Tel Aviv suburb of Raanana and the Jerusalem suburb of Mevasseret Zion. Now, with most established communities out of reach, the newer communities in places like Ariel and Gush Etzion, both located in the West Bank, are looking more and more attractive, not to mention the fact that since 1967, successive Israeli governments have used various financial incentives to encourage Israeli citizens to move to new towns and villages in the West Bank. Many of these new towns and villages sport the same kind of urban landscape that you would find in Thornhill, Mississauga or any other suburb of Toronto - nice, big single-family homes with private driveways and backyards - perfect for a young couple looking to settle down and raise a family.
Yes, there are folks within the Israeli settlement population that see living in the West Bank as their Biblical birthright and who do not want to share the land with their Palestinian neighbours, but they are the minority, NOT the majority. Hence, I don't see any reason why the media should present these people to their audience any differently than they would present an average Toronto family that chooses to move to Thornhill to get more house for less money.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Rob Ford: The Liberal Media's Favourite Whipping Boy
Toronto's now internationally infamous mayor is back in the news. A new video has surfaced reportedly showing Toronto mayor Rob Ford rambling incoherently, trying to speak with a Caribbean accent and pretty much making a complete fool of himself.
Click here to see video
For those of you who have followed the Ford saga from the beginning, you may think that his antics have become old news. Perhaps you've gotten tired of the whole thing and wish the media would just let it go. Well I'm afraid I've got some bad news for you. The folks in the liberal media won't stop bashing Rob Ford until they've run him completely into the ground. Now just to be fair, Mr. Ford has given the leftists in the media plenty of ammunition to fire at him. He might as well be bringing the rope for them to hang him with. Still, I believe that none of the revelations surrounding Rob Ford and his personal life would have come out had he been a left-leaning mayor. In other words, since Mr. Ford campaigned for and won the Mayor's Chair, the liberal media has engaged in a consistent witch hunt against him.
To illustrate my point, take a look at our provincial premier, Kathleen Wynne, and her Liberal government - a government with an agenda so far to the left that they make the folks in the NDP look like Conservatives. Fortunately, Premier Wynne hasn't made a complete fool of herself appearing on camera smoking crack or being drunk. Nope. Instead, her government squandered about a billion dollars cancelling gas plant deals to save a couple of Liberal ridings. For those of you who don't know, a billion dollars is what Mayor Rob Ford claims to have saved Toronto taxpayers since he was elected. Predictably, the liberal media has cast doubt on this claim, interpreting the numbers as they see fit. Still, you have to wonder, what seems like a more newsworthy story with enough traction to get someone kicked out of office? A guy who has a lot of personal vices and behaves inappropriately in public, but who may have saved us taxpayers up to a billion dollars, or a woman who behaves herself in public, but leads a government that squandered over a billion bucks to save their lowly hides? I can hear the media lefties saying, "darn, the gas plant boondoggle is a much bigger deal. We better keep taking swings at Ford and hope the public buys it." Unfortunately, much of the public has bought it, hook, line and sinker. Never mind that the left-wing press can't seem to find any way to criticize how Mayor Ford governs the city, which is why they have resorted to attacking his personal life and his behaviour. If following politics since my early teens has taught me anything, it's that personal attacks are always employed by a politician's opponents whenever they are feeling desperate, and I truly believe that the leftists on Toronto City Council and their cheerleaders in the liberal media are desperate. They're desperate because for the first time in what seems like forever, a mayor has come forward who makes sure that they don't get a free pass to engage in reckless spending as they have done in the past on a regular basis. Unfortunately, old habits die hard and since City Council stripped the mayor of his powers, the leftist councillors are once again heading for the trough.
This year, it will be up to the citizens of Toronto to decide Rob Ford's fate and the fate of our city. It's just a matter of time until the liberal media gets into full campaign mode, singing the praises of Olivia Chow, or some other left-wing candidate, who will want to make bicycle trails out of every one of our major streets, ban cars from pretty much everywhere, smother Toronto business owners with regulatory red tape, and spend the city into bankruptcy so quickly that even Greece's finances will look better than ours.
Now, by no means am I writing this to endorse Rob Ford. I'm getting sick of his crude and embarrassing behaviour just as much as the next guy. The problem is that we're faced with a very inconvenient choice: a person with a history of drug and alcohol abuse who behaves like an idiot and yet still respects our tax dollars, or someone who behaves like an upstanding citizen in his or her personal life, but who will throw away our hard-earned money at a pace faster than a Canadian Olympic speed skater. I wish we had a better choice, but unfortunately we're stuck with the lemons that we have - and they're really sour.
Click here to see video
For those of you who have followed the Ford saga from the beginning, you may think that his antics have become old news. Perhaps you've gotten tired of the whole thing and wish the media would just let it go. Well I'm afraid I've got some bad news for you. The folks in the liberal media won't stop bashing Rob Ford until they've run him completely into the ground. Now just to be fair, Mr. Ford has given the leftists in the media plenty of ammunition to fire at him. He might as well be bringing the rope for them to hang him with. Still, I believe that none of the revelations surrounding Rob Ford and his personal life would have come out had he been a left-leaning mayor. In other words, since Mr. Ford campaigned for and won the Mayor's Chair, the liberal media has engaged in a consistent witch hunt against him.
To illustrate my point, take a look at our provincial premier, Kathleen Wynne, and her Liberal government - a government with an agenda so far to the left that they make the folks in the NDP look like Conservatives. Fortunately, Premier Wynne hasn't made a complete fool of herself appearing on camera smoking crack or being drunk. Nope. Instead, her government squandered about a billion dollars cancelling gas plant deals to save a couple of Liberal ridings. For those of you who don't know, a billion dollars is what Mayor Rob Ford claims to have saved Toronto taxpayers since he was elected. Predictably, the liberal media has cast doubt on this claim, interpreting the numbers as they see fit. Still, you have to wonder, what seems like a more newsworthy story with enough traction to get someone kicked out of office? A guy who has a lot of personal vices and behaves inappropriately in public, but who may have saved us taxpayers up to a billion dollars, or a woman who behaves herself in public, but leads a government that squandered over a billion bucks to save their lowly hides? I can hear the media lefties saying, "darn, the gas plant boondoggle is a much bigger deal. We better keep taking swings at Ford and hope the public buys it." Unfortunately, much of the public has bought it, hook, line and sinker. Never mind that the left-wing press can't seem to find any way to criticize how Mayor Ford governs the city, which is why they have resorted to attacking his personal life and his behaviour. If following politics since my early teens has taught me anything, it's that personal attacks are always employed by a politician's opponents whenever they are feeling desperate, and I truly believe that the leftists on Toronto City Council and their cheerleaders in the liberal media are desperate. They're desperate because for the first time in what seems like forever, a mayor has come forward who makes sure that they don't get a free pass to engage in reckless spending as they have done in the past on a regular basis. Unfortunately, old habits die hard and since City Council stripped the mayor of his powers, the leftist councillors are once again heading for the trough.
This year, it will be up to the citizens of Toronto to decide Rob Ford's fate and the fate of our city. It's just a matter of time until the liberal media gets into full campaign mode, singing the praises of Olivia Chow, or some other left-wing candidate, who will want to make bicycle trails out of every one of our major streets, ban cars from pretty much everywhere, smother Toronto business owners with regulatory red tape, and spend the city into bankruptcy so quickly that even Greece's finances will look better than ours.
Now, by no means am I writing this to endorse Rob Ford. I'm getting sick of his crude and embarrassing behaviour just as much as the next guy. The problem is that we're faced with a very inconvenient choice: a person with a history of drug and alcohol abuse who behaves like an idiot and yet still respects our tax dollars, or someone who behaves like an upstanding citizen in his or her personal life, but who will throw away our hard-earned money at a pace faster than a Canadian Olympic speed skater. I wish we had a better choice, but unfortunately we're stuck with the lemons that we have - and they're really sour.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
The New-Old Cold War
As far as most people know, the Cold War between the capitalist Western bloc, led by the U.S. and the communist eastern bloc, led by the Soviet Union, ended when the Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991 and broke into several different states. But did it really end? I ask this question because since 1991, the governments of both the U.S. and Russia have often behaved as if the Cold War were still going on. The Russians, who were the dominant force in the old Soviet empire, have been striving to either keep or reassert their dominance in former Soviet states, like Ukraine and Georgia ever since they broke away from the USSR and became independent. At the same time, the Americans have made efforts to increase their influence in both the former Soviet states and the former satellite states of eastern Europe. So it's no surprise then that ever since communism lost its grip on Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the United States and Russia have been at loggerheads over major conflicts since the early 1990's, from the Bosnian civil war in the early-to-mid 90's, to the current civil war in Syria. Perhaps the Cold War is still going on. Then again, it may not be that simple.
If there is still a Cold War taking place, it is significantly different than the clash of ideologies that characterized the period from the end of World War II to the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia now embraces capitalism with open arms and is in fact an important player in key economic sectors, such as oil and gas. So the ideological conflict that was a main ingredient of the old Cold War no longer exists. Also, although the U.S. and Russia are still the two main rivals of a resurgent cold war, the battle lines are quite different. Most of us know that the original cold war pitted the U.S. and its western European allies, brought together by the NATO military alliance, against Russia and its satellite states in eastern Europe, held together by their own military alliance, the Warsaw Pact. Today, the U.S. and its European allies are still bound together by NATO and the Europeans themselves are much more closely integrated by the European Union, which has broken down most economic and political barriers between the European states, leading to a situation where people can cross from France into Germany as easily as people in Ontario cross into Quebec, without having to worry about borders or customs. The Russians, on the other hand, no longer have a major military alliance binding them to other countries, though they do still have significant political, economic and military ties with some of their neighbours and are continually making efforts to make new alliances and solidify old ones. Finally, one major factor that significantly distinguishes the new Cold War from the old is the fact that Russia is no longer the only major cold war foe. It is now joined by a up-and-coming superpower, China, and an increasingly assertive Iran. Since the end of Soviet Union, the ties between Russia, China and Iran have grown significantly close, and I believe that they will only grow closer. Unlike in the original cold war, there is no ideology that binds these three countries, but simply a common goal to counter the influence of the United States which emerged as the world's only superpower after the Soviet Union ceased to exist. So now the old cold war between the U.S. and the USSR has given way to a new one pitting the U.S. and its allies against the regimes of Russia, China and Iran. Let the games begin!
If I continue on the premise that a new cold war began almost immediately after the old cold war ended, I would say that so far, the U.S. and its allies have had the upper hand. The European Union has expanded into the Eastern European states once dominated by Russia and the former Soviet Union and has even reached the borders of Russia itself. In southern Europe, the Russian-backed leaders that perpetrated many of the atrocities associated with the breakup of Yugoslavia in places like Bosnia and Kosovo, have been driven out of power, making way for further EU expansion. The most recent victory of the U.S.-led West over the triple axis of Russia, China and Iran took place in Libya where rebels, backed by NATO air power, toppled long-serving dictator Muammar Gaddafi, who maintained friendly relations with Russia, China and Iran. I sense, however, that the tide may be beginning to turn. For example, in Syria, the site of a civil war that has now dragged on for approximately three years, U.S.-led efforts to topple the ruling dictator, Bashar al-Assad, have unraveled. In recent months, Al-Assad has been gaining ground against the opposition, whose Western allies have wavered in sending them the weapons they would need to topple the dictator. At the same time, Russia, one of Al-Assad's strongest supporters, continues to provide him with a steady supply of weapons and other equipment (see for example this article). Iran also supplies the Syrian regime with both weapons and soldiers, while China provides moral support to ensure that no regime change occurs. Also, the recent deal on Iran's nuclear program has demonstrated increasing weakness on the part of the U.S., which has shown that it is no longer willing to risk a military conflict to counter growing Iranian power in the Middle East. The deal has also brought to light the resurgence of Russia under its autocratic president, Vladimir Putin. On the European front, President Putin has practically blackmailed Ukraine into signing an economic cooperation pact that would strengthen the country's ties with Russia, instead of signing on to a trade deal with the European Union, which would have put the country on the road to EU membership. A smaller, much lesser-known pact was also concluded between Russia and Armenia with the former using similar blackmailing tactics to persuade the latter former Soviet state to comply. Meanwhile, the growing Chinese economic juggernaut is continuing to make inroads into Africa and South America in a race for raw materials. China's military is expanding rapidly and so recent spats over tiny islands in the East and South China Seas are likely to become more frequent - and more dangerous.
I would say that overall, the tide will continue to turn against the U.S. and its allies, in favour of the Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis, at least in the near future. The influence of the U.S. and the rest of the Western world will continue to decline in the midst of economic hardship, mounting debt levels and the weak, Neville Chamberlain-esque leadership of Barack Obama. America and its NATO allies will significantly reduce their military capabilities in order to cut spending and control ever-increasing levels of debt and budget deficits. At the same time, Russia, China and Iran will increase their military capabilities as well as their political and economic spheres of influence. Where there were once American and European military bases, you may soon see Russian and Chinese military bases in their place. In the worst-case scenario, we may wake up one day to find ourselves outmatched by the Russian-Chinese-Iranian triangle of terror. At that point, the only question I would ask is, how long before we see tanks and troops of the three countries' armies on our streets? Okay, maybe you find this last thought laughable, but consider that many in western Europe had the same reaction when Winston Churchill tried to warn them about Hitler's Germany. It's a safe bet that these same people weren't laughing once nearly the entire continent was under the boot of the Nazis.
If there is still a Cold War taking place, it is significantly different than the clash of ideologies that characterized the period from the end of World War II to the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia now embraces capitalism with open arms and is in fact an important player in key economic sectors, such as oil and gas. So the ideological conflict that was a main ingredient of the old Cold War no longer exists. Also, although the U.S. and Russia are still the two main rivals of a resurgent cold war, the battle lines are quite different. Most of us know that the original cold war pitted the U.S. and its western European allies, brought together by the NATO military alliance, against Russia and its satellite states in eastern Europe, held together by their own military alliance, the Warsaw Pact. Today, the U.S. and its European allies are still bound together by NATO and the Europeans themselves are much more closely integrated by the European Union, which has broken down most economic and political barriers between the European states, leading to a situation where people can cross from France into Germany as easily as people in Ontario cross into Quebec, without having to worry about borders or customs. The Russians, on the other hand, no longer have a major military alliance binding them to other countries, though they do still have significant political, economic and military ties with some of their neighbours and are continually making efforts to make new alliances and solidify old ones. Finally, one major factor that significantly distinguishes the new Cold War from the old is the fact that Russia is no longer the only major cold war foe. It is now joined by a up-and-coming superpower, China, and an increasingly assertive Iran. Since the end of Soviet Union, the ties between Russia, China and Iran have grown significantly close, and I believe that they will only grow closer. Unlike in the original cold war, there is no ideology that binds these three countries, but simply a common goal to counter the influence of the United States which emerged as the world's only superpower after the Soviet Union ceased to exist. So now the old cold war between the U.S. and the USSR has given way to a new one pitting the U.S. and its allies against the regimes of Russia, China and Iran. Let the games begin!
If I continue on the premise that a new cold war began almost immediately after the old cold war ended, I would say that so far, the U.S. and its allies have had the upper hand. The European Union has expanded into the Eastern European states once dominated by Russia and the former Soviet Union and has even reached the borders of Russia itself. In southern Europe, the Russian-backed leaders that perpetrated many of the atrocities associated with the breakup of Yugoslavia in places like Bosnia and Kosovo, have been driven out of power, making way for further EU expansion. The most recent victory of the U.S.-led West over the triple axis of Russia, China and Iran took place in Libya where rebels, backed by NATO air power, toppled long-serving dictator Muammar Gaddafi, who maintained friendly relations with Russia, China and Iran. I sense, however, that the tide may be beginning to turn. For example, in Syria, the site of a civil war that has now dragged on for approximately three years, U.S.-led efforts to topple the ruling dictator, Bashar al-Assad, have unraveled. In recent months, Al-Assad has been gaining ground against the opposition, whose Western allies have wavered in sending them the weapons they would need to topple the dictator. At the same time, Russia, one of Al-Assad's strongest supporters, continues to provide him with a steady supply of weapons and other equipment (see for example this article). Iran also supplies the Syrian regime with both weapons and soldiers, while China provides moral support to ensure that no regime change occurs. Also, the recent deal on Iran's nuclear program has demonstrated increasing weakness on the part of the U.S., which has shown that it is no longer willing to risk a military conflict to counter growing Iranian power in the Middle East. The deal has also brought to light the resurgence of Russia under its autocratic president, Vladimir Putin. On the European front, President Putin has practically blackmailed Ukraine into signing an economic cooperation pact that would strengthen the country's ties with Russia, instead of signing on to a trade deal with the European Union, which would have put the country on the road to EU membership. A smaller, much lesser-known pact was also concluded between Russia and Armenia with the former using similar blackmailing tactics to persuade the latter former Soviet state to comply. Meanwhile, the growing Chinese economic juggernaut is continuing to make inroads into Africa and South America in a race for raw materials. China's military is expanding rapidly and so recent spats over tiny islands in the East and South China Seas are likely to become more frequent - and more dangerous.
I would say that overall, the tide will continue to turn against the U.S. and its allies, in favour of the Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis, at least in the near future. The influence of the U.S. and the rest of the Western world will continue to decline in the midst of economic hardship, mounting debt levels and the weak, Neville Chamberlain-esque leadership of Barack Obama. America and its NATO allies will significantly reduce their military capabilities in order to cut spending and control ever-increasing levels of debt and budget deficits. At the same time, Russia, China and Iran will increase their military capabilities as well as their political and economic spheres of influence. Where there were once American and European military bases, you may soon see Russian and Chinese military bases in their place. In the worst-case scenario, we may wake up one day to find ourselves outmatched by the Russian-Chinese-Iranian triangle of terror. At that point, the only question I would ask is, how long before we see tanks and troops of the three countries' armies on our streets? Okay, maybe you find this last thought laughable, but consider that many in western Europe had the same reaction when Winston Churchill tried to warn them about Hitler's Germany. It's a safe bet that these same people weren't laughing once nearly the entire continent was under the boot of the Nazis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)