"The return of the Vikings is only the beginning."
I posted recently about the dispute between Canada and Denmark about Hans Island. I purposely made it light in tone, a lark, a minor tiff between two mature nations that don't resort to violence.
Guess what?
I was yanking you. This is serious, and now I'll tell you why.
From "The Return of the Vikings" by Rob Heubert Ph.D.:
Thus the real problem of the modern day Vikings is not over Hans Island itself, but in that it demonstrates how bare the Canadian cupboard is to defend the Canadian north! The Canadian ability to know what is happening in the north and to subsequently act, is almost nonexistent. Given the fact Canadian northern boundaries are constantly being challenged by others, Canadians should be concerned.
Not much point about being the True North is we can't even see north, now is there? So who else is lusting after the Canadian Arctic?
First, the Danes:
[The location of Hans Island] location affects the manner by which the maritime boundary is determined between northern Greenland and Canada. In turn, this international boundary takes on significance for three reasons. First, these waters contain important fish stocks including turbot and shrimp. The boundary will affect the northern divisions of this resource. Secondly, it has been reported that Greenland Inuit have been crossing over to Baffin Island to engage in illegal polar bear hunts. The Canadian Rangers have been dispatched to Baffin Island but have not caught any of the alleged hunters. If it proves to have been a long-term habit, it is conceivable that the Greenland homeland government could argue that the hunt is an established right. Thus, any boundary dispute between Canada and Denmark could exacerbate that situation. Thirdly, the impact of climate change is expected to cause substantial warming of the Polar region. Thus, while the region is remote and inhospitable, this could change rapidly as the region warms.
The Russians:
The possibility also exists that Canada and Russia may have overlapping claims for the continental shelf in the high Arctic. But since Canada has never bothered to ratify the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, it has yet to determine the northern limits of its shelf! Thus, it is not yet known if a dispute exists.
The Americans:
The United States still maintains that the Northwest Passage is an international strait and not internal waters as Canada claims; and the northern maritime boundary between Alaska and Yukon is disputed.
So laugh it up about being able to take on Denmark. After them is the Russian Bear and the American Eagle.
Not so funny now.
If Canada cannot effectively fend off Denmark, diplomatically or otherwise, any attempt to mediate disputes with Russia and the US will be doomed to fail, the precedent being set that Canada cannot assert control.
Control is based on a monopoly on violence. That is the foundation of government. Democracy, monarchy, dictatorship -- they're all the same inasmuch as any government of any form exists only for as long as it is the only entity within that geographic area that can assert its will by violent means.
Think about a failed state like Somalia. Every region, every city block, had its own warlord with his own private army. The same goes for the wild regions of Pakistan. The importance on building the Iraq security forces up is tied to this same principle.
Do we have to be able to beat the Danes or the Russians or the Americans? Not necessarily, and that's a good thing, since the Americans could beat anyone. A monopoly on violence can be maintained if you can convince a stronger power that a victory over you will be too expensive compared to what would be won. That expense can be in terms of milltary losses suffered despite a victory in battle, or in terms of lost trade, or in terms of the diplomatic cost. Usually, it is a combination of all three. It is hard to control trade and diplomatic relations, though. An aggressor country might enjoy such an inbalance of trade such that an embargo would have little effect. Similarly, it might succeed in isolating you diplomatically before attacking.
At the end of the day, the only factor you have complete control over is your military. As long as you can beat the other guy, or make certain that he'll regret it even if he wins, then he'll leave that area to you, and you can maintain your monopoly on violence and thus your sovereignty.
One more thing -- it's not just nation-states you have to worry about. Criminal organizations and terrorist groups often fill the vacuum where a nation-state fails to maintain a monopoly on violence. The corollary is true -- a monopoly on violence works against the ability of these sorts of groups to become a real danger.
The problem is that, militarily, Canada can do nothing to challenge other powers, nation-states or otherwise, in the Far North:
The incident involving the Danish vessel highlights the problem of Canada's ability to know and defend its interests in the north. Canada has an extremely limited ability to know what is happening in its northern regions and an even lesser ability to respond. Unlike vessels entering Canadian waters on its east and west coasts, foreign vessels entering Canadian northern waters are requested, but not required, to report their presence. The problem is compounded by Canada not having a comprehensive surveillance capability that a designated satellite system would provide. RadarSat1 proves that Canadian industry has the capability to build such a system, but the government decided some time ago that the purchase of a system only for northern surveillance, was too expensive.
Too expensive? Then just hand the North over to the Danes, the Russians, and the Americans. They seem to think it's worth it. The American and Russians have nuclear submarines designed specifically for under-ice work (though the Russian ones are probably rusting away). And the Danes?
They have not come in the traditional long-boats, but in a modern, ice-strengthened frigate. This past summer, the Danish government sent the frigate Vaedderen to patrol the waters between the northwest corner of Greenland and Ellesmere Island. The Danes have regularly been sending warships to this area for quite some time now.
What about our ice-hardened frigates? I mean Canada must have ice-hardened frigates. We're an Arctic country, for crying out loud:
Unlike the Danes, none of our naval vessels are ice-strengthened, thus only the Coast Guard's icebreakers can actually voyage to the region surrounding Hans Island.
Great. Ice-breakers. Well, better than nothing I suppose:
Even more troubling is the condition of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) ice-breaking fleet. It is very professional and one of the most highly trained fleets in the world, but it is small, aging and drastically underfunded. Compounding the limited number of vessels is the fact that the operational budget of these vessels has been continually reduced in the past decade to the point where the Coast Guard cannot operate these vessels all year round.
So what right do we have to claim any of the North, much less Hans Island? Not only can we not assert our will, we don't appear to have the will to be assertive.
That Canada has nominal sovereignty over the Far North has more to do with the decency of the Americans, the far distance of the Danes, and the financial and political troubles plaguing the Russians. (Oh, and the fact that the Americans would rather have us in charge than the Russians or any European power. The moment Canada is clearly unable to fulfill that function, the Americans will move in and we'll be told to go home.) Canada is the True North by default -- the other players haven't really shown up to play. One day, they might -- over fishing rights, over undersea oil and gas, over northern diamonds, over access to the North-West Passage, or just because they feel like it. I doubt Canada will be ready, and will be reduced to making bleating noises about international law and fairness. Actually that might be dangerous -- a determined foe (a nation-state, a criminal syndicate, or a terrorist group) would see such a pathetic display as a sign that Canada is unable to assert sovereignty anywhere within its territory.
That might get them wondering what other tasty tidbits are worth gobbling up.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Too True.
Shame on our government for what they have done to our army. Shame on them for talking away our ability to defend ourselves (guns). Shame on them for laundering money that could be used to pay honest hardworking members of our Canadian forces.
There is one problem that i cannot work out. It is obvious to me that our Government does not hold the balance of power in this country. If that is the case then Canada is a power vacuum and has been for many years. The real problem is this. Power vacuums do not persist, something has filled in that vacuum of power. Is it the American Army? Mebbe. Is it a criminal organization? Possibly. Is it some monitary elite that plans to carve up this country for personal gain? I wouldn't dismiss it.
In any case our sovreignty is being granted us by a third party, who we do not know and cannot control. When will it be suddenly revoked and the curtain pulled back? We won't know 'til after.
*shakes head*
Posted by: Brad in Barrhead at July 26, 2005 06:35 PM
Any nation that cannot stand up to a bunch of malcontents that make up only 2 percent of its population (guess who I'm talking about?) has already given away its sovereignty.
We have only 2 options left;
1. Toughen up and build up
or,
2. Hope and pray we are acquired by a benevolent power.
Posted by: accidentwaitingtohappen at July 26, 2005 07:37 PM
I'll run up there and protect that frozen rock wit' me pitchfork iffin ya kin git me up dere!!!
We'll show dem Yanks how we Kanadians kin pertect da Nord and show everyurn else how tough we is havin a gay minister of defense!!
Posted by: Brian Walsh at July 26, 2005 07:39 PM
Angry: Whatever the underlying issues, this silliness has convinced me that RoC (because I feel certain Quebec could, to use the Americanism, care less) has truly descended to a state of nationalist idiocy worthy of the Balkans at their (almost) worst.
Half the front page of the Globe and Mail is taken up with a story about the National Defence Minister's heroic stop on the island. Papers publish tables comparing the military strength of Canada vs Denmark (Denmark! Who's next? Slovenia? Luxemburg? Andorra? Liechtenstein? San Marino? Monaco?)
Tables that give figures for Canada's Leopard I tank strength--how might these ever be used against Hans Island or Denmark?
If ever there was a country with which such an issue could be rationally discussed diplomatically it must be Denmark. So what does the Government of Canada do? Fly in Mr Graham in a mortifying piece of grandstanding.
Does anyone expect a Danish minister to make a retaliatory descent? I suspect the very concept of such a sovereignty visit would be absurd to the Danes. Gut-busting in fact. Pythonesque. Pushing up ice.
Had something similar been done by the US our so sophisticated media would have bayed with derision. And rightly so.
There are serious Arctic issues. Helicopter diplomacy is not the way to deal with them. Unless you are a Liberal government pandering, through an utterly ineffectual real-world gesture, to the worst in the RoC psyche.
And our media do not see the pitiful nature of this?
I weep for my country.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 26, 2005 08:11 PM
If Canada is a power vacuum, if the government cannot exercise sovereignty within our borders, then why do we pay taxes to the government?
Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 26, 2005 08:47 PM
I dunno.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 26, 2005 08:51 PM
Ed Minchau: So they can tell us what a wonderful country we live in and how good the health care system is.
And then on CBC's "The National" tonight there is a major segment on supposed sightings of foreign submarines in Canadian Arctic waters. An "expert" is trotted out to state than any such intrusions are "acts of war".
Only four countries have any likely submarine capability or national interest to be operating in those areas: Russia, UK, US, or France. If any one of these countries is committing "acts of war" against Canada, what to do?
What a sensational, and at the same time trivial, way of dealing with the issue.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 26, 2005 10:26 PM
And in the middle of all this, the new guy in charge of the Canadian Armed Forces is accused of being high on his own testosterone for saying that the purpose of a military is to...wait for it...kill people. Kill people if and when these ugly situations arise and the "monopoly of violence" (nice term, Angry...I like it!) is inexorably challenged.
And here I was preparing to bring my next load of laundry over to CFB Namao for pressing and folding, too.
Question: is the term "Canadian Armed Forces" a technically accurate term to use anymore?
Posted by: Kenneth at July 26, 2005 10:54 PM
It is not enough to say that we have allowed our military to detiorate. If we are to assert military control over the vast north we need a military larger than ever with more capability than ever before. We are talking a military of 250,000 troops. It will significantly affect Canadians to spend 30 or 40% of our tax base on the military. Even then we are not going to war with the US or Russia. We will have to settle disputes by international courts.
Posted by: al at July 26, 2005 11:41 PM
"We are talking a military of 250,000 troops."
Small militaries can pack a big punch with force multipliers. Things like mobility and rigorous surveillance can keep potential interlopers away.
Another force multipler is an alliance or treaty. Let's say we show the US we're serious about the North. Robust military (not huge), technological capacity to project power in the North, surveillance, mobility. Throw in a vigorous diplomatic push to resolve these territorial annoyances without being weak.
The US is impressed. We work out a compromise on the North-West Passage. Now the US sees us a real partner, instead of a nuisance to be tolerated. Part of the Passage deal includes the US helping us out in Northern territorial management. Now the Ruskies know that to take on Canada is to take on the US -- force multiplication big time.
Small and medium countries need to be clever. Canada can do that.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 26, 2005 11:56 PM
Canada showing the US it's serious about the North could be a difficult undertaking. After BMD, which was a complete no-brainer, how is the US supposed to believe Canada is serious about anything that involves defense?
I think anything proposed by Canada in reference to defense would be seen by the US as "this is what we want you to do, let us know when it's done".
And the Ruskies already know taking on Canada means taking on the US. With or without treaties between the US and Canada, the Russians know that. Canadians can vote, spend and legislate themselves to hell if they want, that's their business - but we won't allow the Russians to be in charge of hell when they get there.
Posted by: Jay at July 27, 2005 01:12 AM
Remember that critical US interests are at stake in the Far North. Canadian incompetence won't be tolerated for long.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 27, 2005 04:06 AM
Angry...excellent post...my question is,why have we allowed ourselves to become so dependant on the Americans?To Jay...how can we defend ourselves when our government takes away our guns?And we allowed it to happen.We are a no-nothing,do-nothing piece of shit country as far as the rest of the world is concerned,and we have nobody to blame but ourselves.At one time,we stood up and defended ourselves and our allies.We had the third largest army in the world,and it was all volunteer.We launched the greatest naval force ever seen fron Halifax.We had the best of the best fighter jets in the world until Diefenbacher killed them.And now?The shrimp fleet in Digby could sink our whole so-called Navy and not even blink an eye.Sad and sorry.But this is what the Liberals and Canadians want,otherwise,you would not keep voting them in!
Posted by: Justthinkin at July 27, 2005 05:57 AM
Angry: So you're saying at some point the US will say "Canada, this area needs defending and we don't really care anymore what you have to say about it. It's still yours, but we're protecting it"?
Okay, I guess I answered my own question - that comment would make sense.
Justthinkin: blame the voters. I have my doubts about how much of a democracy you are now, but in the earlier days - those guys were voted in so there's nobody to blame but Canadians.
Posted by: Jay at July 27, 2005 07:11 AM
I take your point about defence of sovereignty. But this is the wrong place to get huffy. Hans Island, that it--it's obviouslu OK to get huffy here. :)
The island is smack-dabe in the middel of the channel between Ellesmere Island and Greenland. If the shelf, and not the piece of rock, is an underlying issue, why not partition the island along the channel line to let both Canada and Greenland keep their channel waters and all rights pertaining thereto?
I'm not learned in this, but what gave us ownership to Hans Island in the first place? In any case, the place to take a stand is not here, but in the Arctic, especially now when things seem to be warming up (although we mustn't speak of left-wing ideas like global warming, now, must we?).
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 27, 2005 08:06 AM
Moscow would make a very nice capital for the Canadian Oblast you know.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 27, 2005 08:32 AM
Mark:
http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2005/05/tipping-point.html
http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2005/05/tipping-point-part-ii.html
Posted by: Alan at July 27, 2005 08:54 AM
"I'm not learned in this, but what gave us ownership to Hans Island in the first place?"
Truth be told, I'm not sure. Historical ownership helps, but at the end of the day, it belongs to whomever wants it badly enough.
"In any case, the place to take a stand is not here, but in the Arctic, especially now when things seem to be warming up"
But as the writer of the essay said, caving on this undercuts our ability to rally support in other similar situations. Similarly, a robust and successful claim to Hans Island strengthens our hand.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 27, 2005 09:11 AM
Couple things. First, the sorry state of the Canadian military is Liberal Party policy, not an accident. During the height of the cold war the Liberals started in cutting the military, and since Chretien got in they have cut it to death. What we have now is about one decent regiment, not an army. That's policy. They don't WANT an army. I'll leave it to the rest of you guys and gals to contemplate the wisdom of that.
Second, defending the North is a job for a mobile force not some massive fortified Maginot line. Al says we need to spend 30% to 40% of our tax base on the military and to have 250,000 men on tap. That's not the case. Currently we have about 5,000 to 8,000 combat soldiers out of a total count of ~60,000 National Defence employees. Most of whom can't shoot straight or run a mile, much less enter combat.
What we need is about 30,000 permanent combat soldiers and a LARGE volunteer militia that can go places and do things at need. We need airlift and sealift, we need Arctic fighting vehicles and ships, long range missiles and bombers (because Canada is big!) and we need to be able to cooperate with the American's systems. None of these things are impossibly expensive, none are beyond the capability of Canadian industry to design and build right here. Creating jobs, incidentally.
What's missing is a regime that values national security, and the public awareness of just how far our butts are swinging out in the breeze. Until people are confronted by the fact that we -need- a military we are not going to have one.
Hopefully the realization will come before the actual need, eh?
Posted by: The Phantom at July 27, 2005 09:32 AM
I should clarify its the 55,000 desk pilots who can't shoot or run, the 5,000 Reg Forces combat guys are serious business.
Too bad we can't seem to get them the right colour uniforms when they need them. Only a Liberal would send a guy to Afghanistan in "Shoot-Me!" green.
Posted by: The Phantom at July 27, 2005 09:39 AM
Angry - In the end this is going to be about fishing and resources (diamonds and Oil). On the fishing front - Spain is still fishing inside the 200 mile limit on the east coast and there's nothing we can do. Small diplomatic incidents occur about once every 5 years. France fishes inside the zone thanks to ownership of St. Peirre, Miquelon. Our Coast Guard barely controls the east coast fishing, and I'm pretty sure we have similar problems with other countries fishing on the West coast. What we need in this country is a proper satellite surveillance system and some decent (Arctic and otherwise) frigates that can patrol these water year round. A few aircraft that can get there relatively quickly wouldn't be a bad thing either. Right now most of the aircraft that can consistently and safely get in and out of arctic regions in the winter are privately owned.
I'm always wondering when Canadian are going to realize what has happened to our military over the last 30 years. What kind of incident is going to make them stand up and say enough.
Posted by: sheila at July 27, 2005 09:49 AM
The Liberals don't want a strong army because army leaders are conservative and vote Conservative. Further to that, if a prime minister has to violate parliamentary tradition in order to cling to power, he doesn't want to be looking over his shoulder at a general whose willing to use his monopoly of violence to make his prime minister obey the rules of democracy.
Posted by: grammar guy at July 27, 2005 10:09 AM
I think that you guys are missing a huge point. The US is at war. I know Canadians don't believe it, no matter how many Canukistanis died in 911, but we do. If you cant defend your norther territories, we will have to. And I don't mean that ironically or sarcastically. I still don't think that you Canadians get it regarding the threat to the US these Islamiscists pose. If you Canadians can figure out where to sign a peace treaty with them, I would be happy to hear it, until then, it is imperitive for any democratic govt to defend itself against attack. Failure to do so results in that govt's replacement. Nice promises from your kleptocrat of the month will mean nothing, given the decline of your country's will to defend anything to do with Western Civilization.
Your best move would be to give in on our claim that it is international waters. You will lose the least face, seem reasonable, and there is nothing you can do about it anyways. Stop selling us subsidized maple syrup, lobsters, and softwood? Fine, bring it on. Plenty of Americans would stand up and cheer. Make it harder for our freight to cross the border? We will probably be forced to do that to you if you can't guarantee your own sovereignty.
Glaciers have been retreating for 300 years. It will be an open passage soon, cutting 8,000 miles off the trip between the Far East and Europe. Ships have already used it. I wonder who in Canada they called for permission? The US will patrol it, as we have inherited the job of keeping the sea lanes open from the British Empire.
Incidentally, if you care to look at some of my old posts on this site, you will see that I have raise this point, here and elsewhere many times. You can no more defend your artic than the Russians can defend Siberia from China.
Posted by: moptop at July 27, 2005 10:39 AM
Wait a minute, I just realized how you could make it all better. Put little Canadian flags on the TV screens and in magazines and newspapers. Then, anybody tempted to violate your sovereignty will be so impressed by your national unity that they will be forced to reconsider!
Posted by: moptop at July 27, 2005 10:42 AM
"I think that you guys are missing a huge point. The US is at war. I know Canadians don't believe it, no matter how many Canukistanis died in 911, but we do. If you cant defend your norther territories, we will have to."
I get it. Moptop gets it. A few others get it. But most people in Canada are just chuckling, confident in their moral superiority.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at July 27, 2005 10:47 AM
Angry: With respect to the US and the North, in the late 40s and early 50s the US made it clear to Canada diplomatically that if were unwilling/unable to defend our northern airspace against Russian jet bombers that were expected to become operational in the mid/late 50s, the US would do it for us.
This situation was the impetus behind large-scale production of the CF-100 all-weather air defence fighter in the 1950s, and ultimately the NORAD Treaty of 1958.
Then Canada decided to bring something substantial to the table to convince the US that we could be trusted to defend our territory. I see no prospect of any comparable effort today.
All the Liberal huffing and puffing about the North (faithfully and hysterically reported in the Globe) is essentially an empty "nationalist" gesture aimed at winning votes. Without actually doing much practically.
Also if any significant part of whatever extra resources the Liberals may eventually dole out the military goes to the North, the Liberals will be able to claim they have strengthened the military and defended Canadian sovereignty--without actually adding much to the Forces' ability conduct serious military operations. Which would suit the Liberals just fine.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 27, 2005 10:50 AM
Canada can't even defend it's own airspace. By not joining in on BMD, Canada is surrendering control of it's airspace and defence to Washington. The seacosts of Canada are being patrolled by USCG cutters and icebreakers. It's about time that Canada starts watching it's airports or we should just let TSA screen passengers.
Might want to rename Department of Homeland Security to the Department of North American Security. :)
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2005 11:33 AM
It really is time for Canada to create a modern, mobile, and versatile force. And not just for peacekeeping but for defesive purposes. Or we could go for the Kruschev method and keep on cutting our military while building up a nuclear arsenal, thus providing a very notable deterrent. Now I know how many Canadians are against nuclear technology. But it kept most of the hostile West from taking any action against the CPSU while I was in Moscow during the 80's. It is probably the most effective deterrent there is. And it would certainly make the Danish think twice about taking over an insignificant island.
View this position as you will, I don't doubt I'll get the standard "radical neo-marxist communist war-monger" comment. But Canada really needs to end security dependence on foreign powers. I think your Vassal status is shameful. A condition which would be appropriate for, say, Scotland or East Germany, but not for the second largest country in the world. Peacekeeping is useless if you can't defend yourself. A few assasins in Kandahar will do you no good if the Americans ever decide that Alberta would make a good fifty second state.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 27, 2005 11:34 AM
Canada is not a sovereign nation. It hasn't been for some time. 80% of our trade is with the U.S. and we have no military left to defend ourselves. In fact, given multiculturalism, pluralism and all the other isms, it's hard to think of Canada as anything other than land that 30 million people with nothing in common occupy. It has no identity, it lost that when the liberal revisionists started rewriting our once proud history and creating a culture that more than half the country can't identify with. The liberal voters don't take pride in Canada, they take pride in liberalism. The conservatives take pride in what was once Canada. The quebecers, well what can I say. Perhaps the only hope is for the Americans to slowly squeeze the liberal puss out of the country. I can only wish.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 27, 2005 11:41 AM
I am no conservative, and I am no pro-western spokesman, but I think that Canada as a capitalist society has the lowest level of nationalism I've ever seen. I think that's the greatest failing of this nation. Most people are somewhat satisfied with the status-quo but they always talk about living elsewhere, like Dallas or Paris. If most Canadians were asked their city of choice in which to live, I don't doubt that many would name a foreign city. And it's not that Canada is without it's charms, I find it to be very appealing. It's that there isn't very much to be truly proud of. There is nothing *unique*. Everything is an assimilated mass made of small parts of other cultures. And I'm in complete agreement with that, but it hasn't evolved past that to form a national identity. Your national animal is the boorish but "efficient" beaver, your international policy is based on fortifying your domestic agenda and having no regard for bolstering your image abroad, and your history doesn't resound with innovation or ingenuity. Noithing in particular comes to mind when you think of World History and Canada's place in it. Nothing that would make it stand out. Involvment in wars? Great, except that was the case for most of Europe as well. I love Canada, I enjoy living here very much and I don't plan on leaving any time soon. I think you have a great, if sometimes flawed, society. But I do think that the way things are going, Canada will forever be a bastion of mediocrity. Your idea of Greatness is status-quo.
For all the talk against progressives and liberals and the such going on, I don't find Canada is doing much progress anyways. Canadians have abandoned nationalism and pride of the mother/fatherland for friendly relationships with everyone and politically correct rhetoric.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 27, 2005 12:00 PM
"Canada can't even defend its own airspace"
"Canada is not a sovereign nation. It hasn't been for some time."
I propose changing the name of the unit of measure for current from "Amp" to "Taxre". Then, the unit of measure for power would change; electrical power is current times voltage, so Joules would change from "Amp-Volt" to...
Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 27, 2005 02:18 PM
Friendly relations with everyone except the US that is.
And Martin B, were you really in Moscow in the '80s? Now I really can't tell if you are being ironic. Every person born under communism I ever met has been strongly anti communist, with one exception, a Russian jew who complained about having to pay rent in the US, even though he was highly skilled, and is now working for a company famous for making millionaires out of its employees.
Posted by: moptop at July 27, 2005 02:21 PM
Yes, I was in Moscow. And you must not know a large number of ethnic Russians currently living in Russia. Please go to Russia and ask around if things were better before or now. Anyone with less than a six figure income will probably nullify your argument. As for Moscow itself, a deep schism exists between the common "working" class and the new elite. For the city with the most billionaires, it sure has much lower living standards now than before. And since I assume that most of your sources for anti-communism don't currently live in Russia, I must believe that they are probably against communism because they can afford to move elsewhere, and are not forced to endure worst conditions than under perestroika. It's really funny how the western world perceives former communist countries these days, they see the Gucci billboard at Kievskaya station and they think "Prosperity!". Keep in mind that less than 10 percent of the Moscovites could afford a Gucci product without simltaneously going bankrupt until the next paycheck. I wouldn't take what the Russian media advertises at face-value. Unless you are a fan of Government run media corporations. So please continue to speak for your multimillionaire former communist citizen friends. I'm sure they speak for the masses. And I'm sure they especially speak for the common Russian who once had food on his table and could attend university for free but now has to work two jobs and live in a shared apartment so that someday his son can live within the vicinity of his elementary school instead of a 25 kilometer bus ride away.
As a final note, you should know that in the Russian Duma, the Communist Party is the main opposition. I wouldn't say that almost everyone who has lived under communism is an anti-communist given that a number of them do vote communist. It would be like saying the people who vote conservative in Canada are negligible. Simply because they are not in the supreme majority does not mean they are not there. Something to keep in mind the next time you post a comment filled with selective reasoning while quoting a few select individuals and questionning my word.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 27, 2005 03:05 PM
Two very interesting articles:
CP 27/7: "Internal report says Arctic exercise revealed flaws in military operations"
http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory4.aspx?id=0dcbbe6d-2a9a-4044-b0b7-4246c4085c05
Washington Times 12/6: "Northwest Passage redux"
http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20050612-123835-3711r.htm
The real issue is the maritime passage question, not who owns the land itself (Hans aside). Canadian land is not claimed and could only be threatened in any event by 1) the US and 2) Russia.
Against the US we are powerless. The US will protect us, in any foreseeable future, from the Russians. So we do not need any major army presence.
What we do need is effective surveillance, aerial (UAVs?) and satellite. That really is not terribly expensive.
But in the long run, if the maritime passage issue truly becomes relevant as a result of the ice pack receding, nothing naval we can realistically do will settle it in our favour. The issue will be settled by negotiation and/or international judicial arbitration. Which we well might lose--the various sea passage in the Indonesian archepelogo would be a relevant precedent and are considered international waters.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at July 27, 2005 05:02 PM
Martin B., my immediate relatives were near Warsaw during the 1970's and 1980's and there was no cakewalk in Eastern Europe. My current relatives in Poland do not make six-figures, but they also have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in going back to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
So you wish you were back in your days in the nomenklatura being a good little aparachik?
Otrzymuja zycie!
anon (only slightly pissed)
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2005 05:30 PM
Actually Martin, all of my friends who left communist countries were, what did we used to call them? oh yeah, defectors. In other words, they escaped. Cuba, Viet Nam, Poland, and the Russian Jew, I think he was able to emigrate. Only the Russian is a millionaire, I am guessing, and only he expressed resentment to me at the US, ironically enough. The polish woman spoke of spreading lard on her bread as a child and considering it a treat.
You show me the capitalist country that has to build walls and deploy minders to keep its population in. I don't think that any but the extreme left in Canada would agree with you that Canada would have been better off swallowed by the Soviet Union.
Posted by: moptop at July 27, 2005 07:01 PM
This is a great post angry. I agree with you, Canada is a know nothing, do nothing country filled with mega babies all crying for something from the 'government'. What is going to happen to the babies when the 'government' runs out of money because the generators of money have moved out? This, much more than Denmark or anyone else on the globe, is a much more (de) pressing problem. People in this country 'hate' President Bush because he is a man of action and a man of principle - in the past grown people and children admired such people even when they did not agree with them. Canadians are 'afraid' of Stephen Harper!! How childish, how silly, how illuminating. If the 'babies' get hungry they will attack; they will beat people and stab them and shoot them - for their hoarded food and goods. That is a fact. No one helped Cuba or Russia or Romania in the event of anarchy. No one will help us. We must grow up, shut up, and make all men learn the trade of a soldier - like they do in Switzerland - or we will fitter away everything that our ancestors fought for in wars and as pioneers. I am not afraid, I am revolted.
Posted by: Jema54 at July 27, 2005 08:30 PM
'No one helped Cuba or Russia or Romania in the event of anarchy. No one will help us.'
This isn't going to happen. Canada has an "older brother" that wouldn't let it happen. Although some Canadians will not like the cure.
Canada is like a drunk, it needs to go to AA meetings and follow the program. If it doesn't it will only continue down the path to ruin.
Hey, I like Canada, but I'm real worried for it's continued existance.
anon
Posted by: anon at July 28, 2005 08:12 AM
anon, I'm not going to argue with you, first of all because I think the Sovietization of Poland was a crime and a waste for a society that had already endured much. And I am not Bolshevik or an aparcthik in thrall to the party congress. But I do think for Russia itself (And I speak not of other eastern european countries) times were better in the past. Much better. I am sorry for your relatives that they had to endure swine like Gomulka and Jaruzelski. I certainly did not mean any insult to you or them. But I stand by my position of in comparison, having been in Moscow back then and visiting it now, things have worsened considerably.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 28, 2005 09:47 AM
Some of the comments on the state of Canada are very interesting. Particularly Martin B. who seems to prefer even more state control than we presently have.
The reason we don't have an army right now IS state control. The current Official Doctrine of Canada is the "Nice Guy" doctrine. We send our soldiers around the world doing nice things for all the poor unfortunates. This is much less expensive than the American insistence on actually protecting their national security and their citizens abroad, and we get better press.
At home the Nice Guy doctrine means the "rich" pay for our own poor unfortunates, and we all feel better.
Not a bad principle as long as the people who pay feel that they are getting results. It also doesn't hurt if the poor unfortunates have some pride and try hard to "get ahead in life", meet their social responsibilities, and generally behave like they give a rip.
Well, that all changed under Trudeau who decided all money rightfully belonged to the government and set about making it so. To do this he introduced all the panoply of Multiculturalism, Post Modern Relativism and anti-Christian Humanism and made it part of the Nice Guy Doctrine.
Bottom line, nothing but feel-good socialism, Relativism and Humanism has been taught in public school for 30 years.
Fast forward to now, Canada helps anybody who isn't Christian, White or male, and nobody is expected to "fit in" or "get ahead". Those are bourgeois concepts imposed by the White Male Capitalist Hegemony Military Industrial Complex! Die American Capitalist pigdogs!!! D'oh sorry, Strangelove reflex.
So what we are faced with is cities with a large underclass of unassimilated welfare recipients who have no allegiance to Canada and for whom getting ahead is something they heard about on Leave It To Beaver once. The general populace of large cities has no notion of nationalism or public service, and no clue about what happens to countries that don't have armies. Most people in Canada have never even seen a soldier with a gun in his hands in their life. We don't even have parades anymore!
Furthermore any talk of diverting some of the ruinous taxation to defense is met with derision from the people who are taxed! Who's going to feed the poor? Who's going to clean up the garbage? Who's going to babysit my brats while I work two jobs to pay the mortgage on my half million dollar falling down row house on Roncesvales? HMMM?!
Flawless victory of propaganda, basically. People in the high density population cores think they are going to die if Harper gets in, or if anything disrupts the Liberal Plan. People outside those areas don't matter a damn, because they don't have enough seats in Parliament. Sweet, eh?
Reality doesn't have a chance against that kind of conditioning. The only reason I'm not brainwashed too is I moved to the USA back in 1993 and stopped drinking the Liberal bong water cold turkey.
Now I'm back home after ten years absence, I can see the man behind the curtain. Makes me wonder how long this rusted hulk of a scam can keep wheezing forward before the wheels come off for good.
Probably quite a while, people who are used to state control don't usually take on responsibility for their own lives much less their society unless things are extremely bad. They just look for another strongman. Kind of like sheep going back to where the barn used to be.
Posted by: The Phantom at July 28, 2005 10:20 AM
I hardly think the Liberal Party is a bastion of state control in comparison to other countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. I probably have less respect for the Liberal Party than I have for the conservatives. To quote Edward Crankshaw, the man behind the publishing and editing of Kruschev's memoirs, "Nothing is more abhorrent to communists than other types of leftists. Communists hate democratic socialists even more than they hate conservatives". There is truth to that. So-called leftist parties of the West are simply granola socialists who feel they can redeem themselves of their elitism and corporate control by making a very well placed public statement or action to keep the hordes in line. At least conservatives truly speak their minds and advocate themselves as warriors of capitalism. Liberals simply wallow in their own propaganda and hypocrisy. Anathema to Marxists and Leninists, who think that their views and ideology need to be thrown out in the open to incite a worker's revolution, not hidden behind bourgeois policy Kerensky-style. Back to the original argument, I think Canada's only hope of developping an adequate military is under a conservative government that exercise a large amount of state control. Rightists without the libertarian element. I think this type of government would be willing to tax it's citizens to allow for greater military buildup. But that's probably wishful thinking on my part. A far more likely woutcome would be the destruction of expensive social programs.
I don't speak for canadian people, but I would be curious to know if Canadians were willing to sacrifice their social safety net in favor of a stronger international presence and military prestige. My guess is for the majority, no. The status-quo and stability are much more appealing, no matter the future consequences.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 28, 2005 10:50 AM
Sorry, Martin, but the problem with Canada is that there are too many idiots willing to call themselves "Canadian" and work up an emotional sweat over "their country". Thank God most of us are sane and recognise that "Canada" has nothing to do with us and is not in our interests.
I see no need for a Canadian military at all. Canada is an American protectorate. We need to be co-operating with and participating in the American defence system, since it is the system that defends us. Make it easier for Canadians to join the American forces, and for American forces to operate on Canadian territory.
Posted by: ebt at July 28, 2005 01:14 PM
If it is the opinion of Canadians that being a vassal state is ideal, then you are right ebt. But if Canadians ever want to pursue a status where they are not entralled to a Great Power, then a greatly increased military as well as a less intergrational foreign policy is in their best interests.
But by all means, if most people are satisfied with being the modern international equivalent of sovietized Poland, then the status-quo should remain.
Posted by: Martin B. at July 28, 2005 01:23 PM
The Liberals are actually quite clever, I think. As Martin B. says, there are much heavier handed states in Eastern Europe. The Liberals are state control lite. Up to a certain point (income level) Canadians can cruise along under the radar and do what they like, within the somewhat elastic confines of political correctness and etc.
Try to do something -large- however, like start a newspaper, make automobiles or open a new steel mill, and you need friends. You have to get a "special deal" from the feds and/or the province, otherwise you can't compete with even the French. The taxes, regulations and labour paperwork are simply ruinous.
State control lite. Its invisible, but its there. Example, try to sell some new thingamajigger to the Armed Forces. Let's say its a new life jacket. Best in the world, made in Canada, best price, twice as good as what they have now, the works. If you don't know the right guys in Ottawa to play golf with, you're beat.
This is so much more clever than Stalinism. People don't know they have no freedom and no protection, and they happily pay tax rates of 65% and up.
The status quo is held in place by naked force and intimidation. We just can't see it working very often, that's all.
Posted by: The Phantom at July 28, 2005 09:47 PM
I think the smartest thing for that life jacket maker would be to move to the states and either start his own company or sell it to some major corporation. Ok, I guess that's what usually does happen.
Posted by: Jay at July 29, 2005 04:45 AM
Somebody in high places is reading Angry:
"Graham told CTV's Question Period the government especially recognizes the need to assert control over the Northwest Passage, which could become a viable shipping lane if global warming trends continue."
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1122846609541&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
It appears that Canada has opted for some kind of cheap 'virtual sovereignty' Virtual in this case, as always, means "Not really".
Posted by: moptop at August 2, 2005 02:46 PM
Martin B,
Earlier, you advised me to speak to ethnic Russians before talking about how ex-communists feel about communism. Well, I am advising you to speak to Poles who lived through Soviet occupation before comparing life in Canada to live in Soviet dominated Poland.
Canada knows two things about the US. We can't allow Canada to come to harm by an outside invader. And we won't invade or undermine Canada ourselves. We just don't want you. Sorry. Compare that to Poland and the Russians.
Posted by: moptop at August 2, 2005 02:51 PM
This may become a tiny point in history only if these two moderate nations continue to behave as petulent spoiled brats.
Otherwise, this will never amount to anything at all. Such long-windedness about a diversion that is embarrasingly pointless.
I heard that we were going to fly up a shipping container with a negotiating table and a candle and a few chairs so both parties can negotiate future plans.
Those plans are for the design and building of an exclusive gambling casino and brothel where pot will be perfectly within the law.
Monty, where are you?
Monty python is that you? Get inside here before it turns blue and falls off. 73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at August 4, 2005 11:19 PM
Professional navigational channel engineers agree unanimously the Hans Island is a world shipping and navigation hazard.
For safety reasons, Hans Island must be blasted away to a significant depth and the whole operation will be more expensive than the blasting of Ripple Rock was just up from Campbell River B.C.
Canada now admits their claim to Hans Island was an error and apologizes to the Danes.
After all Hans Isl. is closer to Greenland, Mr. Graham said.
Bill Graham said something like, *We are sorry for any misunderstanding. Hans Island is yours and we hope you enjoy it.*
Denmark then insisted, * No, the error is ours. We now admit you placed a Canadian Flag on Hans Island and that action makes Hans Island yours.
Both sides had firmly locked in heels on the issue until someone suggested giving the Island to Barbados.
The decision to deed Hans Island to Barbados was fully agreed to by both countries.
Both parties agreed that since Paul Martin's Canadian/ Barbados Steam Ship Lines will be the prime users of the straight, they could logically expect Barbados to fund the removal of Hans Island. 73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at August 5, 2005 07:43 PM
 
|
|
