Staying the course with peacekeeping

Romeo Dallaire is the true definition of a hero. And we can claim him as ours!

Yesterday, I watched Shake Hands with the Devil, the 2007 Canadian movie about the genocide in Rwanda, starring Roy Dupuis (Barbarian Invasions, The Rocket) as Lieutenant-General Dallaire. If you haven't seen it, you should.

The movie portrayed Dallaire as a man of steely determination and compassion in a very Canadian way -- understated, but with enough graphic reality that discounted the use of shoot-em-up computer graphics and "to-scale" models constructed on some studio back lot. This was the real deal and felt like it. You couldn't mistake it for anything but genuine; one man, leading 450 rag-tag UN peacekeepers, working tirelessly against the odds in the worst possible conditions.

It cut close to the bone for me on many levels. The United Nations is filled with good people, but put them together at headquarters in New York, disconnected in many ways from the reality on the ground and you have nameless, faceless apparatchiks deciding on the fate of innocents half a world away. At the end of a day, the keyboards go silent, the lights go dim, and it's off to the opera, or an honourary dinner at the Ambassador's residence on Park Avenue, or just a quiet meal at home with the family in ignorant bliss. The next day, it starts all over.

It was at once painful and pleasing to see the Canadian flag and the United Nations flag together on Dallaire's uniform. Pleasing because it spoke to one of our country's fundamental contributions to international order and peace in the latter half of the 20th century. Painful because it was a reminder of just how weakened and poorly regarded peacekeeping has become. Where Canada was once a leader, we no longer are. Where peacekeeping was seen as a fundamental contribution of the United Nations to stability around the world, it is now underfunded and ineffectual. It would seem that the days of peacekeeping -- first modeled by Lester Pearson -- are numbered.

The CBC's Brian Stewart wrote a very interesting online op-ed on the subject back in April. With some authority, he said:

In 1990, fully 10 per cent of all UN missions were staffed by Canadians and the image of blue-helmeted Canadian soldiers policing the world's flashpoints — from Cyprus and Sinai to Kashmir — became almost as iconic as the beaver.

But those days are gone. It's time to face the harsh reality.

Stewart also provides a quick overview of the unraveling of peacekeeping and possible successor models. I've given the approaches in his article, and others, some thought. The issue for me -- whether it's sending NATO troops to do some type of modified "peacekeeping" or a pan-North American police force into a place like Haiti -- is the potential to fall into old traps of imperialism or gun boat diplomacy.

The "have" countries will always be able to send "professionals" into places where there is value. Areas where no value exists will either be forgotten or made into training grounds for troops or police -- in such cases, the actual value is in maintaining chaos. The world always loses out in such cases.

The dark cloud around peacekeeping in its current state -- and the manner in which it has come into disrepute -- stems directly from the fact that it doesn't have the support or leadership of strong world powers. Without that, it is bound to atrophy, which is what we are seeing. Peacekeeping is being left to die a slow, painful death, with the UN filling in the gaps as best it can with undisciplined, poorly trained troops.

The peacekeeping model introduced by Pearson -- internationally sanctioned and multi-lateral in composition -- is still valid. Perhaps not perfect, but surely relevant if there is to be any hope of survival for a multi-lateral approach to solving the world's problems. Furthermore, this is Canada's legacy to protect. We should not allow the efforts of great Canadians to be relegated to a forgotten chapter of international history.

Much ado about nothing... I mean Ignatieff

Last Sunday, Michael Ignatieff was officially declared leader of the Liberal Party of Canada -- unchallenged and unfettered in his quest for the job. It was a coronation, really. Someone even called it the "Seinfeld convention" -- a show about nothing.

Following a miserable performance in late 2008 by then-Liberal Party leader, Stephane Dion, in his attempts to persuade Canadians that a coalition government was a logical alternative to the tyranny of the Harper conservatives, Dion logically stepped down. The Liberals were significantly weakened and, while there was an initial rush to fill the leadership void by some very respected politicians, they bowed out in the name of 'party unity.' Ignatieff, it would seem, would have the interim leader job all to himself. My close friend Red Canuck blogged about it.

My introduction to Michael Ignatieff was in 2003 when, in the run up to (an essentially) unilateral declaration of war by the United States, Ignatieff published a massive diatribe in the New York Times magazine extolling the virtues of the need for America to take offensive action against Iraq. This Harvard professor and influential American thinker fell hook, line and sinker for the old urine-in-the-vial trick. Our 'little guy from Shawinigan,' Prime Minister Jean Chretien, had the sense to ask where was the proof? And without reasonable proof, Chretien had the sense to keep Canada out of a devastating mire.

I have no personal vendetta against Ignatieff. I read his 2007 Iraq mea culpa (also in the New York Times magazine), which I found to be a pompous, politically-expedient way to clear the air, if not redefine himself as moderate, perhaps more "Canadian" after having spent the majority of his life outside the country. Still, it was an admission of error -- after the fact and in the face of truly disgusting war crimes by American soldiers -- but still, he had the sense to try distance himself and salvage a shred of credibility. He wrote:

"Having left an academic post at Harvard in 2005 and returned home to Canada to enter political life, I keep revisiting the Iraq debacle, trying to understand exactly how the judgments I now have to make in the political arena need to improve on the ones I used to offer from the sidelines. I've learned that acquiring good judgment in politics starts with knowing when to admit your mistakes."

Too little, too late in my books. But comments on Red Canuck's blog showed that liberal, progressive Canadians remain desperate for leadership, to the point where rallying behind a less-than ideal Liberal Party candidate is seen as a step forward towards healing deep wounds. Far be it for me to criticize that approach; it's clear this is what many in the Liberal Party wanted. Even the name of Pierre Trudeau was invoked!

Let's be blunt: Ignatieff is no Trudeau. I think someone was passing out some pretty strong Kool-Aid at the Vancouver convention. The real shame is that the Liberal Party, the natural party for Canadians -- centrist, moderate -- has essentially confirmed two things in my mind. It has lost the plot in terms of where it sits in Canada's political spectrum, continuing to inch rightward, disenfranchising many centre and left-leaning Liberals. The second is that, whether Harper or Ignatieff is Prime Minister, both appear to be ideologically similar -- in the same way Chevys and Pontiacs are essentially the same cars. You can sell them as different for only so long before people wise up.

Though admittedly I sit slightly outside the fray, I see the political scene in Canada as being in deep, deep trouble. Whether it's an election-fatigued populace, terrible political choices across the spectrum, or the divisive rise of punditry that has helped fragment Canada into regional blocs with a deep-seated trench mentality. Canada needs another real Trudeau; someone who will work to break down barriers and bring all of us together based on our common values. When the Kool-Aid wears off, it will be clear that's not Ignatieff. (And, if you need a metaphoric harbinger, the Pontiac brand will cease to exist in 2010.)

Harper and the dinosaurs

Am I the only one unhappy about the Canadian government spending taxpayer money to buy into Chrysler?

The situations today at Chrysler and General Motors are eerily similar to the situation in the British auto industry in the late 1970s - only without the violence, disco and Labour Government. I suppose in that sense, you can slice the irony with a knife and serve it with a dollop of whipped cream.

The fact that any business in the United States - let alone banking or car manufacturing - is nationalized, must surely strike fear in the hearts of red blooded, god fearing, Coca-Cola drinking Republicans. The US government is definitely charting new territory. In Canada, the irony doesn't come so much from nationalization, but the government that's practicing it.

Stephen Harper has appeared frequently in the US media, touted as a trusted partner to Barack Obama in his first 100 days of the presidency. At a recent international event, B-roll news clips showed the pair, Harper following Obama, having a chat -- really it was Obama talking, and Harper basking in the warm glow of the president's aura. What could our little Alberta despot possibly offer the president? Frankly nothing. That's why Canadians now own $2 billion worth of an automotive dinosaur.

Harper is Ed McMahon to Obama's Johnny Carson; the world doesn't need another 'yes man' and follower. It needs a leader, and in that regard, the Chrysler deal is a complete failure on the part of Canada's leadership. Don't get me wrong, I care deeply about the thousands of families that would be affected should Chrysler close. But that's not the issue here.

The Canadian Government is not a bank machine. It should not be a lender-of-last-resort for a major international corporation -- with the Chrysler deal, we have skewed our entire government and financial system the wrong way. The unions aren't to blame for the demise of Chrysler. The public isn't to blame for the demise of Chrysler. Chrysler's predicament lies squarely on the shoulders of its management -- it alone decides on product offerings, negotiates terms with labour and suppliers, and sets its own pay rates. They should be held to account, not given a cushy, golden handshake. Chrysler isn't even publicly traded/owned anymore, which means the government is essentially taking over a business run by a private investment firm -- Cerberus Private Equity -- whose principals include a host of bigwigs and politicos with major connections. If Dan Gerstein's Forbes December 2008 article on the Chrysler-Cerberus-Government connection doesn't scare you, nothing will.

Aside from the lack of outrage by Canadians -- yet another indication that our education system needs some pretty serious help -- at the very least, there should be people across our country who see how $2 billion could help put more usable and accessible public transportation into place. Whether it's more than just one commuter rail line between Hamilton and Toronto, or additional urban subway lines, or a Vancouver "Sky Train" style monorail in our major cities and suburbs, the loss of Chrysler jobs can easily be made up for with well-thought out skills retooling that is directly relevant to new public works and infrastructure projects. Instead, we're seeing investments in things that perpetuate the myth that dinosaurs walked the earth with humans. How about something a little more profound and forward looking? Let the dinosaurs die, Mr. Harper.

Support to Red Canuck

Over the weekend, I received some very difficult news from my good friend Red Canuck. Since then, he and his family have been on my mind every waking moment. Instead of a blog post this week, I offer my thoughts and prayers and, hopefully, a laugh with this photo of our favorite United Nations megalomaniac, Shashi Tharoor. This one's for you RC! And thanks - no words can express the ways in which you touched our lives, but know that we will try to carry on your good work.


Photo caption:New York, 2 May 2003 -- 3 May serves as an occasion to inform the public of violations of the right to freedom of expression and as a reminder that many journalists brave incarceration or death to bring people the news. Here prominent CanadiUN and Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette, and Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, Shashi Tharoor, mark the day.

Can-Con must be can-do!

A few weeks ago, through the power of the Internet, news arrived of deep cuts to the ranks of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in order to keep budgets balanced. At first, I tried to put my disappointment (bordering on outrage) into context: since its inception, every Canadian government has taken a kick at the CBC can by cutting its budget or by trying to reform its mandate. So much so, that much of what you see and hear on CBC these days is like any other commercial media outlet.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.

CBC is not properly commercial -- it can never be commercial because it can never compete in the same cutthroat manner as a private sector organization focussed solely on the bottom line. Unfortunately, for the last 25 or so years, that's what we've gotten from the CBC, a consequence of trying to draw the difficult balance between being accountable to Canadian taxpayers, and serve Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This has created a watered down, hybrid mash-up of a mandate and is a recipe for suicide in the 500-channel-satellite-radio-Internet-on-demand media universe.

Over holiday dinner last week, the topic of Billy Bob Thornton and his interview with Jian Ghomeshi on CBC Radio was mentioned. Three people around the table didn't know who Ghomeshi was (I did consider them relatively well-informed... not anymore) and the rest of us discussed what happened during the course of the interview and budget cuts to the CBC. It was my brother, in a moment of true lucidity, who asked: "why should we be funding the CBC when these are the types of people being interviewed?"

Well put. And, as much as I hate to admit it, he's right. Who honestly cares about Billy Bob Thornton?

His comment brought to mind another recent incident, when Ghomeshi interviewed Gene Simmons on the topic of "saving the Canadian music industry." Not only was Ghomeshi treated to full frontal arrogance by his guest, but how can Gene Simmons help Canada? The fact that he was given a taxpayer outlet legitimizes him as being informed and qualified to speak on the topic. After the interview, it was clear he was better qualified to save the KISS army than the Canadian music industry. We need made-in-Canada solutions, not excessive tongue flap from false prophets.

Sadly, my family's dinner table was a microcosm for where we stand in Canada right now. There are those who will listen to commercial radio and television, comfortable and satisfied with the prepackaged Mc-morning wake-up show or bubble-gum top 40 hits format. For them, public broadcasting is like offal -- it exists, some call it a delicacy, but let someone else appreciate it. These are the Canadians who should be challenged to engage, think and aspire to something higher, not just the latest Blackberry or trendy top from Old Navy. The Canadian government, for that reason alone, must step up to the plate to provide funding and regulatory guidance to the CBC, and at the same time strengthen regulations on private media outlets out of sheer fear that if this doesn't happen, we will stratify Canada into a tiny population of thinkers and a bloated population of mindless consumers.

Look to America for an existing model -- consumer zombie-ism is not a pretty sight. Public broadcasting is for the moneyed intelligentsia, as they're the only ones who can afford to cough up enough dough and use the donation on their taxes. Otherwise, mind-numbing Fox reality shows, such as Moment of Truth for example, are a staple.

Now, I don't purport to have an in-depth understanding of the regulatory framework for Canadian media, and I recognize that some of my arguments and examples are highly simplified. However, the gist and goals are clear -- it's time for the government to support Canadian media, and not the multinational for-profit corporations that answer to shareholders, that are currently operating our system. The government must use its power to re-localize highly-centralized media corporations in order to make them grassroots once again and therefore, relevant and informative to individual communities. The common "cost consolidation" excuse no longer applies thanks to technology -- the death knell for newspapers, for example, has already sounded. New, Internet iterations of media must be localized to create employment, inspire local newsgathering and story-telling, and ultimately, reinvigorate journalism in every nook and cranny across this country.

In that sense, my sentiments are slightly "back to the future"-esque. As in the past, the CBC should be restored to play its proper role as national voice and media "tie that binds." All Canadians should be encouraged to call upon the government to protect and fund it as such. On the other hand, Canadians should never have allowed local newspapers, radio stations and television stations to be swallowed up into faceless multinational corporations and then systematically watered down to the point where press releases are packaged as news stories (and don't be fooled, this happens all the time!) in the name of cost savings. Thanks to an incredible shift in technology, our government can be proactive and seize an opportunity to help local entrepreneurs and publishers make news local again through new media. In that sense, we can transform Can-Con from simply regulatory in nature, into Can-Do, a proactive approach to supporting Canadians and Canada.

Support the Canadian Labour Congress and its calls to restore CBC funding

Enjoy a blast from the past - 1982 CBC station identifier.

Canada and a changing climate

The Executive Board of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is essentially the mechanism through which member states govern the activities of the organization. At its Annual Session this May, the topic of a three-hour-long special event is UNDP activities in the area of climate change.

Without taking a deep dive into the politics and realities, international development and climate change mitigation are now inextricably linked. For UNDP to remain relevant in this new development paradigm, the organization will have to engage in a lengthy battle and costly retooling to be competitive with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), whose mandate is -- as the name suggests -- the environment.

And so, as with all things in the United Nations system, the careful 'mandate encroachment' dance begins. It starts with a special event to promote the organization's work, but also brings all players to the table (such as UNEP) in a limited but visible-enough way to please member states and show that UNDP is a team player. Afterward comes the call by member states to "cross cut" environmental issues through all initiatives (this was also the case with gender, when it was a hot topic) and then, with any luck, the fundraising will begin, helping to expand the bottom line so that as much of the funds 'pie' as possible is secured for UNDP.

A cynical view -- yes. A realistic view -- absolutely. It's also a sad reflection on the importance of 'turf' among United Nations organizations.

But there are reasons to be optimistic. The amount of money available for development is tightening given the economy, which is forcing donors to take a long hard look at efficiencies and return on investment; donors' critical eyes have never been sharper. Words such as 'duplication,' 'overlap' and 'comparative advantage' are increasingly used in the course of UNDP Board deliberations in an effort to try and reduce administrative bloat -- a common United Nations affliction.

This blog post, as the title suggests, was supposed to be about Canada and climate change. But in a bout of insomnia, reflective of the rather difficult experience I am having as a UNDP staff member, I clearly meandered. What is worth noting in the area of climate change as it pertains to Canada however, is that in late 2008, an interesting report by the National Intelligence Council entitled Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World provided fascinating and comprehensive insight into ongoing and anticipated changes to the world order. The section on climate change featured a sidebar that singled out two countries, Canada being one, for being in a position to capitalize on its vast water reserves and its moderate climate in relation to shifts in the global environment.

Given the vast resources that will be made available to help developing countries mitigate the impact of climate change, the battles have begun at the United Nations. If we are smart in Canada, we will avoid falling into the "money=development" binary and instead, show leadership amongst nations by modelling proper behaviour for environmental preservation. Given the size of our country, we have so many opportunities to make the right decisions -- whether by harnessing the power of our tides, winds or the sun, or by agreeing to and meeting the expectations of international agreements. At a time when our neighbour to the south is making promises of investments in green technology but is too busy bailing out banks and car companies, we are in a position to leapfrog into green education in our universities, green technology and research and development, and green infrastructure. The time to put Canada into a leadership position is now.

A brand to remember

One of the first assignments I undertook in my new role as Reports and Policy Specialist with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Partnerships Bureau was to lead a revamping of the UNDP Partner Survey. It's an appraisal of the opinions and perceptions of what the organization does in the eyes of our donor countries, programme countries and beneficiaries. Admittedly, I am a writer, editor and I would even go so far as to say human resources practitioner -- survey expert or perception guru I am not.

But I can spot an opportunity when it arises. Over the last several years, what has become obvious is that UNDP has lost the plot regarding its brand. We're surveying people, but the results have shown continued muddiness around what the organization does because, well, it doesn't actually understand itself. With the arrival of former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark as the new UNDP Administrator, the time is right for a rebranding exercise, which will re-invigorate a sense of purpose among staff members.

It occurred to me immediately that Canada is also in desperate need of brand re-invigoration.

One could argue that Canada had begun establishing its 'brand' as early as World War I, but it was in the mid-50s, when Lester Pearson spearheaded efforts to diffuse the Suez Crisis through a United Nations emergency force, that our nation began to forge a very distinct brand attribute: neutral peace broker. The world recognized this, and Pearson was awarded the 1957 Nobel Peace Prize. He was unwavering in his conviction:

"The stark and inescapable fact is that today we cannot defend our society by war since total war is total destruction, and if war is used as an instrument of policy, eventually we will have total war. Therefore, the best defense of peace is not power, but the removal of the causes of war, and international agreements which will put peace on a stronger foundation than the terror of destruction."

These words still ring true. Unfortunately for Canada, in the post-911 world and in the hands of bigoted ideologues (our government) and the mindless patriots of the Nintendo generation (certainly the young people supporting our government), terrorism is as good as any 'cause of war' deserving removal. Insanity? Yes, but also a different blog post.

More importantly, intellectuals, community leaders and politicians across Canada had the good sense to take Pearson's 'neutral peace broker' and build upon it. They added progressive, safe, clean, peaceful, orderly and stable. And they solidified these new brand attributes by ensuring their actions were consistent with each, helping define (our sometimes staid) national character. But give me staid and progressive over disorderly, underhanded, power hungry and ideological any day of the week -- in fact, last week would have been a good time to start.

I was mortified that outspoken British MP George Galloway was refused entry into Canada. Mr. Galloway, regardless of how the federal government sees him, has a legitimate and dissenting opinion that Canadians deserve to hear. The excuse for denied entry given by government officials was support he provided to Hamas, which despite being on a Canadian terror organization blacklist, was democratically elected in 2006. William Ayers, a University of Illinois professor who was to speak at a Toronto conference last January, was also kept out of Canada. Thanks for your censorship, Mr. Harper.

And now, as reported by CBC online, a Canadian stuck in Sudan, Abousfian Abdelrazik, was denied a replacement passport "on the basis of national security," according to Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon. Hang on, wasn't he screened BEFORE getting a Canadian passport? Sudan is no picnic -- leaving a Canadian citizen there, even with some misgivings on his or her past, is not only irresponsible, it sends the wrong message on the stability, respect and value of a Canadian passport. If Abdelrazik is a national security threat, he at least deserves a fair hearing by a Canadian judiciary and in full view of his Canadian peers. Bring him home, give him the level of security needed, allow him fair and due process, and then make a transparent and accountable decision on his future. Leaving him stranded not only creates resentment by a man and his community in Canada, it sends the wrong message about our country.

I suppose, in light of the last sentence and the action we've seen from Stephen Harper's government, this is exactly the kind of country Canada is and these are exactly the kind of Canadian attributes they're pushing. And, as each month slips by, another important, true Canadian brand attribute that has taken years to hone and perfect, is undermined or slips off the table entirely. Sorry to say it, we Canadians have also lost the plot. The image of our country is being remade right before our eyes, but whether or not that image is one most of us want to be associated with, and whether we're willing to do something about it, are entirely different questions.