Canada Pushes Middle East Nuclear Proliferation

As the world continues to fret about nuclear proliferation and the atomic ambitions of suspect regimes, such as North Korea and Iran, the western powers seem to be jockeying like starved car salesmen, seeing who can sell the most nuclear technology abroad and make the biggest sales commission. Checker coated Canada it seems has wrapped up another sale, and in so doing raises a number of questions.

As part of a free trade agreement announced with Jordan, International Trade Minister Stockwell Day played up selling Canada’s nuclear wares. CANDU, the Canadian deuterium-uranium reactor, was played up as a possible feature for future sales and trade between the two nations as Canada seeks to get its share while other world powers line up to offer their own nuclear genies to the Jordanian government. Jordan for some time now has been pushing to obtain nuclear technology for its energy program at home.

This sale is an interesting move on Canada’s part, largely because it flies in the face of the current government’s official posturing effort, intended to portray support for Israel. With Israel reputedly going to a number of lengths to try and sway western nations from selling nuclear technology to former foe and neighbour Jordan, it’s interesting that Day is trumpeting a deal that goes counter to the “Stand with Israel” mantra that he and other Conservatives have come to flaunt as part of their core credentials. Yet not unlike the gun registry, railed against by Tory pundits yet still in place three years after they took power, pro Israel mantras are echoing across the looming chasm created by the prospect of sales and nuclear trades to a former Israeli foe. Foreign affairs watchers might find the “foe” reference a little dated and use that in their rebuttal to Israeli concerns. It is true that, amongst many sour Middle Eastern nations, the government of Jordan has a fairly good rapport with the west, and that its government is, in as much as it can be, supportive of the much feted peace process (insofar as they don’t expressly call for Israel’s destruction in their communiqués). But with an autocratic form of government propped up by the west, almost reminiscent of a one time Shah that backed his western allies in what was once considered the western friendly nation of Iran, Jordan’s population is heavily made up of displaced Palestinians that view Israel’s existence with scorn and whom would pry not take such a non-partisan tone on the world stage as their leaders if given a more direct say in their government. Following the blowback of arming the Taliban to fight the Soviets, now having to face them in turn in Afghanistan, should we not perhaps concede some merit to the Israeli concern that the stability of this regime is all but certain? In Iran we’ve witnessed in recent weeks an outpouring against the government there once thought impossible. Likewise a few decades earlier the idea that similar crowds could come out and overthrow the then western friendly government was equally outrageous and seemingly absurd, yet there it happened. As many watchers view the future of the Saudi regime with trepidation, given the possible whims of its population should they ever win popular power, is it not appropriate to look with a similar eye on neighbouring Jordan? Our sale of CANDU nuclear reactors to Jordan is premised on the idea that a) the regime will remain stable and pro-western, and b) that the technology will not be used in any way to develop a nuclear weapons program. However if Canada’s history of CANDU sales on the world stage has taught us anything, it would be that once the technology is in hand there’s little you can do to prevent it from being used for weaponization. India, a far more democratic and viable ally for the long term, used Canadian provided nuclear technology (CIRUS) for it’s own part in its development of nuclear weapons to intimidate rivals Pakistan and China. Jordan, sandwiched between Israel, Syria, a potentially volatile Saudi Arabia and Iraq, which has flooded the country with refugees in recent years, may find any number of pressing reasons on their borders to investigate dabbling in nuclear weapons. Canada’s long standing history of hocking nuclear wares has been precarious at times as is, but Stockwell Day’s announcement amounts to a blind faith bid in a region where stability is ever in short supply and faith blinds and frequently leads to conflict. As Middle Eastern nations clamour to imitate nuclear aspiring Iran should our policy be to enable some and not others, in the hope that we’re making the right choice in each case? We can only hope that the next time Day or one of his colleagues fronts their “Stand with Israel” by-line to try and posture for votes that it leads to some serious questions from the crowds about our nuclear proliferation policy.

Ominous Signs for Elizabeth May

It seems the tea leaves continue to signal ominous portents with regards to Elizabeth May’s chances of ever winning a seat.

In the Nova Scotia provincial election on Tuesday, amidst the shifting fortunes of the NDP, Liberals and PC’s, the Green Party went largely unnoticed, and who could be blamed? In the home province of the federal Green Party leader, Elizabeth May’s provincial counterparts only managed to secure 2.33% of the vote, according to results posted Tuesday night. The results were much worse in the ridings that fall within the boundaries of the federal seat of Central Nova, where May ran and placed a disappointing second in the 2008 Federal Election. With only a few months having passed since the Green leader ran there and brought with her massive national attention to the Greens, the party took in less than the provincial Green average, netting 686 votes over 5 ridings with thresholds in all but one under two percent.* This lends credit to the idea that Elizabeth May’s second place showing was the result of her celebrity and Liberal volunteers that had been instructed to stand down and back the Green leader in an effort to unseat Peter MacKay, amidst rumours that the Greens themselves in the province were marginal and disorganized when in came to helping boost her campaign. Now with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff saying he will not extend the same courtesy as his predecessor did to May, and will instead run a candidate against her, Green fortunes in Central Nova, a long shot before, are now all but impossibly bleak.

However what if May didn’t run in Central Nova next time?

What if instead she hopped the fence and ran next door in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley? With maverick Harper dissident Bill Casey having vacated the seat and May having made the token gesture of not running a candidate against Casey in the last election Greens are genuinely excited about May possibly running here. It would solve the problem of having to respond to critics after she pledged to only ever run in her home of Central Nova, the riding being so close, and surely Bill Casey voters will flock to her in droves given her celebrity and her show of support for the outgoing MP, right?

Perhaps, but again May faces the challenge of finding a team.

In the ridings that compose Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley the provincial Greens faired little better than those from the Central Nova region, again drawing less than the Green average across the whole of Nova Scotia. Federally the same dismal trend is evident in the riding’s electoral history, any Green organization or base being marginal and small. While May’s presence would certainly lend some gravitas and much needed resources to the Greens there, the evidence suggests they’d lend little to her chances of picking up a seat for the party.

It’s hard to draw comparisons between federal and provincial scenarios and electoral results, as much as the party names oft remain the same they reflect what are sometimes two completely different worlds. The reality is however that many volunteers and organizers overlap, and while results may differ you can usually find evidence of a team out there if an organization is strong or there is a core following of the party on the ground. With the Greens all signs in Nova Scotia suggest this is absent. With Elizabeth May’s chances of ever winning a seat continuing to diminish and Greens themselves disillusioned about their fortunes and prospects without the media savvy of their leader, the Greens may find that they’ve hit their peak, and while likely to linger the only seats they’ll ever hold in parliament will be in the visitor’s gallery.


- *The provincial riding of Guysborough-Sheet Harbour includes a small portion that did not fall in the boundaries of Central Nova in 2008, however Green votes won there were added to the overall tally for simplicity's sake. Only 80 votes went Green in the whole riding so the possible difference is marginal in the context of this post.

"New Rules" - May 2009

With Red Tory still out there somewhere unpacking I find I've had to surf the web myself to get my fix of Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann and other punditry, gaffes and clips he would normally catch and post. In that spirit I've posted Bill Maher's "New Rules" for May as a send off for the month, enjoy.

May 1st, 2009



May 8th, 2009



May 15th, 2009



May 22nd, 2009



May 29th, 2009

Elizabeth May: Endangered Species?

With recent buzz and rumours that Elizabeth May is considering a run in the Ontario riding of Bruce-Grey Owen Sound the talk internally amongst Greens is not only whether this is a smart move, but whether this is May’s last move.

With May now twice defeated in two separate ridings the buzz and nattering from malcontents in the Green Party is that May has to win a seat to prove she’s worthy of being it’s leader, hence speculation from Nova Scotia to British Columbia and now in Ontario as to where she may run, and what it means for May if she doesn’t win. The Green Party constitution states:

2.1.4.2 All Council members shall be elected to serve a two year term or until their successors are elected, except the Leader who shall serve a four year term or until a successor is elected.

2.1.3.1 One hundred (100) members of The Party in good standing shall be required to nominate for the position of Leader.

This means that May’s leadership is not only open to review, but that she actually has to run for her job again in 2010. The threshold to enter the race is also so remarkably small (apt for a small party just emerging on the national scene) that it is very easy to line up a bid against the Green leader. While very popular with her base and Canadians as a whole, the Greens as a small organization have the same sort of inner factions all parties do, and in small gatherings and pulling a convention vote those anti-May Greens just may be able to stack enough votes to unseat their leader, or barring that make the atmosphere so poisonous and the appearance of opposition so unpleasant that she’ll fall on her own sword rather than let them take a stab at her.

Incomprehensible as it may be to non-Greens, who’ve seen that party rise to national prominence through the wholesome, charismatic appeal of May, there is a steadily growing element within the Greens that oppose May, not just as a person but as an ideology. The genesis of the anti-May opposition begins with David Chernushenko, the former deputy Green leader who ultimately quit the party and made a scathing critique of May’s leadership following the last election. Chernushenko, whom came in second to May in the Green Party leadership race embodies the faction opposing May. I met him when he first ran, a fourth tier candidate in Ottawa, prominent only in that way that Ottawa area candidates of small parties tend to become by virtue of having the soap box of Parliament in the background. Part of the Green old guard, a mishmashed ideological clique that finds integrity in irrelevancy and advocates platform purity over possible power, Chernushenko is the first of several prominent candidates (in an internal insider Green Party kind of way) to openly present a challenge to May’s leadership.

This arm of the Green Party, not unlike elements within the NDP, is totally uncompromising on ideology and is disdainful of any tactic that has a whiff of pragmatism or mass appeal. Following the departure of former leader Jim Harris, whom they vilified as anti-Green in their oft ignored and marginal party squabbles, this group harboured a quiet disdain for May’s pragmatic candidacy that hinged in part on the perception of her own potential electibility. Even while riding high on the attention she brought them, May has been chastised on occasion when she has attempted to curry favour with the mainstream and make strategic deals in order to win a seat.

After coming a respectable second in the London-North Centre byelection May mystified some Greens by jumping ship to run in her home riding of Central Nova. Deemed a suicide run by some, May at very least managed to make an alliance with Stéphane Dion, a mutual pledge not to run candidates against each other. Now for mainstream political watchers this was a major coup for May. Whereas the Liberals gained nothing by not having a token Green run against Dion in a riding where they have no presence, May garnered huge national attention and, even at a long shot, had many tongues wagging eagerly that just maybe she could surmount the impossible challenge faced in unseating Peter MacKay. The spin-off of this deal, even if her bid for the seat ultimately failed, was that May and the Greens became a national media focus. With tacit Liberal endorsement many soft Liberals, unenchanted with Dion and the negative barrage facing us, cast their lot with the appealing and thus far unsullied Greens. The cult of May in the press cumulated in her being let into the national leader’s debates, a previously unobtainable holy grail for Greens. However as many Greens lauded these accomplishments their resentment for May’s pragmatic concessions began to boil to the surface. When May suggested a possible wider alliance to keep the Conservatives out of some ridings, whereby some Greens would have to concede and go NDP or Liberal in some ridings and, in a few this could be turned to favour and elect a few Greens, the mediocre fourth tier candidates came out in full force, flushed with anger and venom. After comments of the kind from May in Washago, Green candidates from Central Ontario, Niagara, and Hamilton were reputed to have rebuked May and forced her to tone down her strategic voting talk. Toned down or not though the genie was now out of the bottle, and Greens began openly slamming May. By campaign’s end Green candidates and pundits were openly chirping their leader’s decisions to the national media (fortunately for May she garners more national media attention than her party itself) and her deputy leader was storming out the door, all but making her out to be an autocratic Stalin to his stunted Trotsky. With blood in the water other Green luminaries, like GPO leader Frank De Jong, are sticking their toes in, testing the temperature and perhaps trying to rattle their boss out of making her own second bid.

May continues to be a media darling, but her pragmatic advantages are wearing thin. With the Liberal Party in a resurgent mode and leader Michael Ignatieff not conceding the same strategic gifts to her that allowed Greens to slam the Liberals as unpalatable while receiving a free ride and support to get their leader elected, finding a winnable seat is even harder than before. Similarly the Dippers are unlikely to let the Greens gain any traction and risk losing more of the ultra-left protest vote. Picking up on previous flubs by May on abortion that irked and dismayed many, the centre-left is likely to mutually pick up on Green policy points that run contrary to economic concerns or support for key manufacturing sectors. In the end however May’s inability to play on her biggest asset, that perception that she has a chance of winning a seat, should she lose in a third riding, may be the wedge that allows her internal opponents to oust her. The rub of the Greens themselves may ultimately do the job of the other opposition parties for them, consolidating a fractured field of centre-left parties.

Without May the Greens will likely fade fast from media darling to obscurity. Any prospective Green leader in waiting that thinks their inclusion in debates is requisite since May has now been included is deluded, even more so if they think they’ll command the same media coverage. Like Joe Clark playing on his daughter’s looks to get attention during the last hurrah of the PC’s, they’ll feel the death knell closing over them. To this end it is incumbent that all other parties give them a hand. Elizabeth May, likeable in her own way as she may be, is ultimately a divisive figure that brings little to the national scene but a fractured vote that allows hard-core elements of the Conservative Party to ride up to victory in ridings where the Liberal, NDP and Green vote splinters the majority. On abortion, gas taxes, her inability to credibly commit to constituents and a myriad of other issues May touts policies that are not only out of touch with most people’s needs and realities but would never stand the duress of public scrutiny if given proper attention. As seen in the failure of the Green Shift to win over environmentalists and the NDP’s slant towards a more industrial cap and trade friendly system May has sucked the marrow of the environment from the mainstream parties and made it a niche issue of a party holding no seats, unable to affect change. Opposition campaigners, oft targeted squarely on the imperative of removing the Harper government, had ought to consider turning their gun sights on the laxidaisy Greens, especially in whichever riding May ends up running in. Ultimately keeping May out and the Greens mired in the rudiments of fringe party thinking may be the key to undoing the counter polarization in ideology that has allowed Harper to run up the middle without a platform of substance himself and cling to power.

Just Visiting - Mongolian Edition

Yet another Harvard intellectual that’s spent time abroad has been elected to lead his country. Expect Canada to break diplomatic relations with Mongolia any day now, or unleash attack ads.

*Cue ominous music*

“Elbegdorj Tsahia says he’s a Mongolian, but in all his years away he didn’t even spend any time in a yurt. Elbegdorj Tsahia, just visiting… Mongolia.”

Good thing for Elbegdorj that the CPC war room can’t even translate their message into French, let alone Mongolian.

From Obama to Mongolia, the world is turning to big thinkers, and a Harvard background doesn’t seem to hurt when winning the confidence of economy-shocked masses looking for someone with a little vision and confidence in what they’re doing. Rhetoric aside it puts some perspective on the recent slew of attack ads to take the waves in Canada, deriding Harvard intellectual Michael Ignatieff for being away so many years, basically because Harvard isn’t in Canada (that’d be like ripping on John Glen for bailing on America during the cold war cause he was busy in outer space, and not on US terra firma). The idea is that voters don’t like people smarter than them, that they’re perceived as condescending or as not sharing similar average Joe values. There may be some truth in this outside of a recession, but when people are in a jam involving money the first thing they tend to do is run to whomever they perceive to be the smart one in the room and ask them for help juggling the math.

Just ask the Americans and Mongolians.

A New Leader, A New Logo?

With Michael Ignatieff officially installed as leader of the Liberal Party his team is wasting no time putting his unique stamp on things, namely by changing the party logo. As placards with a stylized "Michael" and the similarly styled and fonted word "Liberal" moved into the crowd for the speeches preceding the leader's acceptance speech I didn't think much of it at first, dismissing it as a clever little design thing someone must have come up with for the leader's convention signs and swag. Then I happened to be directed to the party website to check out some content forwarded to me by a friend and behold, the old logo was gone and the new one, from the convention placards, was everywhere!

With convention backdrops, volunteer t-shirts and official materials decked out with the old logo at the start of the convention it comes as a surprise that the party would shift logos midway through televised proceedings. Some of the convention backdrops still bear the logo we've been using the past few years so maybe this is just a trial balloon, or people on the ground are uncoordinated. If I've learned anything from new leader's teams though it's that they usually put their first stamp online, as webpages are easy to change and all about message, so I'm taking this new graphic seriously. Symbolically there's a school of thought that this is smart to do, as it distinctly separates the new from the old. Literally you can take all documents and policies with the old stamp (*cough, cough, Green Shift, cough*) and from that point on visibly identify them as relics of a bygone era, with no relation to the present. Martin did a similar thing after he became leader, changing the logo to update the party and signal a new era, and leaders before him have done likewise. Hopefully though the party will be smart about this rebranding and won't push MP's and past candidates taking another stab at it for the team to dump stockpiled signs and other salvaged materials like happened in some regions the last time we did this. While a fresh look is never a bad idea in politics, wasting money is not.

Geese Stew Today, Cat Food Entrees Tomorrow?

Watching GritGirl's latest video one can't help but think back to the provincial Conservative days in Ontario when the Harris government touted feeding cat food to the poor and welfare recipients. With half the old Harris team in the Harper cabinet it's a wonder that this idea wasn't brought forward sooner.