Do we need to buy the F-35? Does anyone speak for the Canadian public?

By now we all know that there has been a big cock up in Ottawa since the Department of National Defence decided to purchase the F-35 Lightning II fighter-bomber from the United States. The Auditor General has issued a scathing report. The Liberal and NDP opposition in the House of Commons has had a field day attacking the Harper government. But absent from all the political hype is any discussion of the central issue: where is the need for this aircraft within Canada’s broad military policy? On this question we can see that the position of all three of our major political parties is at variance with that of the general public.

Public opinion and Canadian defence policy
There is no question that the events of 9/11 had a dramatic impact on Canadians and their views on national security and defence. But an even greater impact has been the history of Canada’s participation in the U.S.-led and directed war in Afghanistan.

Canada’s mass media has consistently been a strong supporter of Canada’s role as the loyal ally of the United States in foreign policy and its military activities. Thus it is even more surprising to discover that over the past ten years Canadian public opinion polls on foreign and defence policy have found that a majority of Canadians are not comfortable with Canada’s role as an aggressive NATO military power and would much prefer to see our country to be committed once again to United Nations peacekeeping. They would rather Canada act through the UN to provide relief for famine than to drop bombs on less developed countries.

In spite of a major government and media campaign for support of the war in Afghanistan, the majority of Canadians have often disagreed. For example, the Focus Canada polls by Environics have consistently reported low support for the Afghan war, once as low as 24%.

Angus Reid polls have reported similar results over recent years: 55% to 59% opposed to the Afghan war; in 2009 82% wanted to end Canada’s combat role with only 12% in support. In July 2009 they reported that only 38% believed that the Canadian government was right to send our troops to Afghanistan in the first place. Ipsos Reid reported in September 2011 that 75% of Canadians did not believe that the war in Afghanistan was worth the cost. An Angus Reid poll from March 2011 found that 63% of Canadians opposed the military operation of Canadians in Afghanistan with only 32% in support.

A number of polls have reported that around 70% of Canadians prefer a peacekeeping role to a military role in “peacemaking.” The Ekos Research poll in 2005 found Canadians preferring peace keeping over “peace making” by a ratio of 2 to 1.

Canadians prefer UN peacekeeping

What do Canadians want as a defence policy?
In October 2010 Nanos Research asked Canadians what their priorities were for the federal government’s budget. Of the five issues listed, health care ranked first followed by education, jobs and the economy, the environment and taxes. Spending on the military ranked last.

When asked what should be the priority for Canada’s armed forces, the results were as follows:
(1) UN peacekeeping.
(2) Security operations with the U.S.
(3) European NATO commitments.
(4) Overseas combat missions.
A key question asked: “Would you support Canada having another mission like Afghanistan?” The results: 54% strongly opposed, 11% somewhat opposed, 12% strongly supported and 9% somewhat supported. The rest were unsure. None of our three major political parties reflect this majority position.

In June 2011 Ipsos Reid conducted a public opinion poll for the Department of National Defence to see what role the Canadian public would like them to play. The results were as follows:
(1) At the top of the list was disaster relief in Canadian communities.
(2) Ranked second was search and rescue.
(3) Third was patrolling Canadian air space, land and maritime areas.
(4) Next came enforcing Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic.
(5) “Fighting the war on terrorism” came last.
A poll by Ipsos six months earlier showed that Canadians expressed strong support for the Canadian rank and file forces, but only four percent said that the military and defence should be at the top of the public’s agenda.

Roy Romanow: Payback Time for Warnock!

March 14, 2012

Since the middle of 1991 I have certainly been the most vigorous and persistent critic of the decision of the Saskatchewan NDP under Premier Roy Romano to strongly move the party to the right – or the liberal position – and abandon the left and democratic tradition of the previous NDP governments of Tommy Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd and Allan Blakeney. I have written many newspaper articles, magazine articles, presented papers, contributed chapters in books, and jointly published a book with two of my friends which is an overall critique. In fact, at times I thought that I was the only one in the province who thought this was a bad move. No one active within the NDP put forth any public criticism. No federal NDP leader ever came to Saskatchewan and in any way criticized the neoliberal policies being implemented by Romanow and his successor, Lorne Calvert. Now it seems that Roy has finally been able in some way to pay me back.

Saskatchewan model of medicare reform
In 1991 the new NDP government found that the spending programs of Grant Devine’s Conservative government (1982-91) had left the province with a large debt and annual budget deficits. The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and the Saskatchewan Coalition for Social Justice argued that the NDP should follow the example of the CCF government of T.C. Douglas. They had paid down a similar debt over 20 years so that they could retain the ability to implement their progressive party platform. Instead, the Romanow government put its first priority on balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

One of the goals of the Romanow government was to reduce the cost of medicare. They chose the liberal road. They closed 52 of 132 hospitals, transforming them into “health centres.” They created 30 health districts, appointed the majority of their boards, and gave them budgets which were set by the provincial government. The districts were forced to shut facilities and contract out services in order to meet the budget cuts set by the provincial government.

With so many rural hospitals closed, people with emergency health problems were forced to travel by ambulance over significant distances to the remaining hospitals. There was the issue of ambulance service. Originally, the Douglas government had paid for ambulance service. Later there were flat user fees charged. The Romnanow government introduced fees by distances covered. It was not unusual for rural residents to have to pay over $700 to take someone to a hospital by ambulance.

The Romanow government called this “the Wellness Model.” It is no surprise that the NDP lost all of its rural ridings. There is a democratic alternative to the liberal model, based on inequality. In 1998 it was advanced by a new political party, the New Green Alliance, which later formally presented it to the Romanow Commission on Health Care.

Regina's Plains Health Centre - Closed!

Changes in Regina
The “Wellness Model” was also instituted in Regina. A private consultant recommended that one hospital be closed, and of course the NDP agreed. They closed the Plains Health Centre, the newest of the three hospitals, built by Allan Blakeney’s NDP government on the southern edge of the city to better serve rural and eastern Saskatchewan. The older two hospitals were to receive some rather expensive upgrading. The key for the Romanow government was that the number of hospital beds in Regina would be reduced from 1200 to 630. They would also move to contract out services. Robins Donuts replaced the on site food services provided by hospital employees.

The Plains hospital was highly regarded. All rooms were private, with large windows looking out at the prairies. Rural communities had contributed to its construction, and they were outraged. The two older hospitals had little room for additional parking space. The Plains was also a teaching centre linked to the University of Saskatchewan schools of medicine and nursing.

Fiacco Steps Down: Will There Be Any Change for Regina?

Act Up in Saskatchewan
March 5, 2012

On Valentine’s Day Mayor Pat Fiacco held a press conference to announce that he was stepping down and would not run in the fall municipal election. A week later he announced that he would be supporting city Councillor Michael Fougere to replace him. Fougere, who has represented Ward 4 for fifteen years, is the president of the Saskatchewan Construction Association.

Both Fiacco and Fougere stated that their primary commitment for the future of Regina was the building of a new domed stadium. This is the central focus of Fiacco’s dream for the development of the old CPR yards on Dewdney Ave. The existing stadium, known to the people  as Taylor Field, is located in the North Central inner city area. Mayor Fiacco has proclaimed that the existing stadium would be torn down and the land would be redeveloped with “affordable and market-rate housing.” This latter part of his plan would begin in 2020.

Taylor Field to be Upgraded 2012

The new domed stadium
The new stadium, with a retractable roof, would have seats for 33,000 fans. In the winter the dome would be closed and it would host major events like rock shows. While no serious studies have been completed, two years ago the estimated cost of the stadium was set at $431 million. The Mayor said then that 75% of the cost would come from the private sector. To break even on operating costs, it was estimated that the stadium would have to host around 31 major events each year to be able to turn a profit of $1 million.

Brad Wall’s provincial government announced support for the stadium. However, it has yet to commit any funds. An appeal was made to Stephen Harper for federal money. It was hoped that PPP Canada would come up with 25% of the cost or at least $100 million. However, the Harper government pointed out that PPP Canada does not provide funding for professional sports facilities. Mayor Fiacco has yet to reveal who from the private sector might invest in the project. It is not clear how much will come from Regina taxpayers.

Even among those who support the domed stadium there were early criticisms. The original estimate did not include the cost of acquiring the land from the CPR. The draft released to the public called for the site to have a hotel and another casino; many asked why this was necessary.  It was quickly pointed out that the original plan does not include any parking facilities! Many supporters want any new stadium to be built out of the city, similar to the hockey stadium in Saskatoon, the Credit Union Centre.

Brad Humphreys, a University of Alberta economist who specializes in researching sports facilities, has warned the people of Regina that many stadiums end up losing money. The Skydome in Toronto was a disaster; originally costing over $800 million, it was sold to Rogers Communications a few years ago for $25 million. His research has indicated that there is no evidence to show that building sports stadiums results in any local net increase in income or jobs. It is widely recognized that professional sports are in competition with other businesses in the entertainment industry for peoples’ discretionary spending. They are not productive enterprises.

Social Democracy and the Greek Disaster

February 13, 2012

On Sunday night, February 12, the Greek Parliament passed the new austerity measures demanded by the Troika of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank. It is widely agreed that the draconian program will drive the Greek economy even deeper into recession. Very few believe that Greece will avoid defaulting on their debt.

The new “restraint” package includes a 22% reduction in the minimum wage, cuts to pensions and the national pharmaceutical drug program, wage cuts, the elimination of 150,000 government jobs, and the privatization of more government businesses and programs. Companies will now be able to unilaterally reduce wages and break contracts with trade unions.

Public opinion polls show an overwhelming majority of Greeks are opposed to the economic measures being imposed on them. The present government is an alliance between the social democratic party,  PASOK, and the conservative New Democracy, presided over by Lucas Papademos, an unelected prime minister and former banker. The latest poll shows 79% opposed to the bailout package, which is designed to try to protect the international banks and their investments in Greek government bonds.

The two major trade union confederations have been holding general strikes across Greece for over a year now. They are formally linked to PASOK, Greece’s version of Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP). In the 2009 election for the Greek parliament PASOK received 44% of the vote and formed a minority government. In the most recent public opinion poll, their support among potential voters has fallen to 9%. New Democracy is holding at 31%, just slightly less than they received in 2009.

Greeks support general strike

The Greek crisis has shifted public opinion away from the neoliberal social democrats and towards the parties of the left. Support for he Communist Party (PKK), which has played an important role in the general strikes, stands at 13%. The Coalition of the Radical Left, a left green party, is at 12%. The Democratic Left, a socialist party created in 2010, stands at 18%.

When voters were asked who would be the best leader for Greece at this time, the results show the general shift to the left:

Fotis Kouvelis of the Democratic Left – 56%
Alexis Tsipras of the Coalition of the Radical left – 41%
Antonis Samaras of New Democracy - 31%.

Is There a Future for the Saskatchewan NDP?

February 7, 2012

From 1944 through 2007 Saskatchewan politics was dominated by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and its successor the New Democratic Party (NDP). But then it was soundly defeated by the Saskatchewan Party in 2007 and routed in 2011. Today the NDP has only nine seats in the legislature. Dwain Lingenfelter, who had been called back from Nexen in Calgary to lead the party in 2009, has stepped down, and John Nilsen was chosen as the interim leader. The NDP Provincial Council will meet on March 10, 2012 to decide when to call a leadership convention. This is a very important decision.

What is the future for the NDP in Saskatchewan? It is clear that the powers that be in the party do not want to seriously ask what happened and why. They are pushing for an early leadership convention. Only two possible candidates are being mentioned, MLAs Cam Broten and Trent Wotherspoon. It is expected that either will continue the policy direction set by the governments of Roy Romanow and Lorne Calvert (1991-2007). This was the full neoliberal package including the promotion of the free market and free trade, cutting taxes and social programs, the privatization of state enterprises, deregulation, and subsidies for large capitalist enterprises. The party also took a strong stand against the Kyoto protocol and any mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions.

The collapse of the NDP
The Saskatchewan NDP is in big trouble. Their vote has fallen from 275,000 in 1991 to 169,000 in 2007 and 127,000 in 2011. The party membership has fallen from 46,000 in 1991 to around 8,000 today. The provincial Liberal Party has all but disappeared; in the 2011 election they got fewer votes than the Greens. As a result, the Saskatchewan Party received 64% of the popular vote and the NDP only 32%.

When Ryan Bater resigned as leader of the provincial Liberal Party, he argued that the province had now moved to a “one party system.” Without any real shift in policy, it seems very likely that the NDP will be a weak opposition party for the foreseeable future. They may never again form the government.

It should also be recognized that the public’s participation in the electoral process has dropped dramatically. In the 1991 election which swept the NDP back into office, 83% of those who were enumerated went to the polls. In 2011 this had fallen to 66%. But the number of voters on the official electoral roll has also been falling. In 2011 the turnout of eligible voters (citizens 18 and older) was actually only 49%. Why is it that the people of this province no longer feel it is of any use to even bother to vote?

For most people in Saskatchewan times are quite good. The province has had a boom in the resource extraction industries. People have moved here to find work. Overall employment is up significantly. The average wage is now above the national average. House prices have risen with the general boom, which has benefitted the majority. So it was highly unlikely that the NDP had a chance to win this past election, no matter who the leader was.

The International Community

January 23, 2012

So what or who is “The International Community?” We hear it all the time from certain political leaders. For example, Hilary Clinton, President Barrack Obama’s Secretary of State, uses the term all the time.“We will take the issue of Iran’s nuclear program [certainly not ours!] to The International Community.” Is this the United Nations? Not exactly. It is:

I. The Sheriff.

The government of the United States of America. There are five U.S. Central Commands which cover the entire world, which is the U.S. sphere of influence. They are linked to 750 public bases in 38 countries plus other secret bases. The U.S. Navy has 12 aircraft carrier strike groups which operate in all international waters and are equipped with nuclear weapons. The U.S. Air Force has 94 B-52, 21 B-2 and 67 B-1 bombers which can be loaded with a wide range of bunker bombs as well as nuclear weapons. To back this up there are 500 nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles ready to go from their bases in the USA. One third of all U.S. aircraft today are unmanned drones, directed to bomb targets all around the world from bases in the USA. There are also 18 ballistic missile submarines, which are also decked out with nuclear weapons. At the bottom are around 1.4 million rank and file military personnel, backed by the private mercenary armies provided by corporations like Blackwater and DynCorp.

In support of this phalanx of military power there is by far the largest intelligence and surveillance operation the world has ever seen. This includes the Central Intelligence Agency, The National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, all working closely with Lockheed Martin Corporation. Together they do their best to monitor all telephone calls, who uses the Internet and for what purposes, read everyone’s e-mails and even monitor the books you get out of the public library. Suspects are red flagged in their data bases. This shows up on the agent’s screen when you cross an international border.

Individuals may not know they are being monitored. In the buildup of mass popular opposition to the U.S. attack on Iraq, members of the Green Party of the USA were banned from using commercial aircraft to attend and speak at peace rallies.

With this kind of raw power, it is not surprising that since the demise of the Soviet bloc, the U.S. government has been able to capture and use the United Nations. The U.S. government names the Secretary General, controls the Security Council and dominates all the official international aid agencies. But this is not enough.

II. The Deputy Sheriffs.

These are Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. With the Sheriff, they form the Anglo American Alliance to Control the World, a power structure based on white settler colonialism. These countries worked closely together to develop the first nuclear weapons, which the US government dropped on Japan. They have an exclusive treaty for the development and production of chemical and biological weapons, which were used widely in the Vietnam war. More recently they formed the UKUSA Signals Intelligence Alliance, which operates the Echelon program and its 120 spy satellites. Because of their special cultural relationship, these governments have agreed on the right to spy on each other with no advance permission required. Now that is solidarity!

The Deputy Sheriffs all have their Special Forces which work together in the field. They were first developed after World War II to specialize in counter insurgency warfare, where national liberation movements in the colonized world were trying to end European domination. The U.S. Special Forces were fine tuned during the Vietnam War. Under the Phoenix Program they were charged with disrupting civilian support for the Vietnamese National Liberation Front. The U.S. government admits that the Army Special Forces and the Navy SEALS “neutralized” 81,740 suspects and assassinated 26,369.

Torture as Acceptable Government Policy: USA, NATO and Canada

by John W. Warnock
Act Up in Saskatchewan
January 16, 2012

On January 5 Afghan President Hamid Karzai declared that within one month the U.S. government and NATO must hand over control of the Parwan prison at Agram Air Force Base north of Kabul to the Afghan government. An Afghan government commission investigated and reported that the there is systematic abuse of those held in this prison.

Gul Rahman Qazi, head of the commission, told the press that only 300 of the 2700 mainly Afghans held at the prison had been charged with any offense. The remainder “were being held without charges or evidence of guilt” and should be released. The vast majority of detainees had “no access to the courts” or family members. Many of those who had been charged in court and released, or who had served enough time in the jail to cover their sentences, were still being held by NATO authorities on the grounds that they were suspected of being insurgents.

In addition, the Afghan commission charged that detainees were being subjected to practices that were widely understood to be torture. These included beatings, various techniques of sleep deprivation, being held in small cells with no light, no heat and inadequate clothes and blankets, and being stripped and given intrusive body searches. Some of those who had not been charged were held for long periods of time in solitary confinement. Most detainees are held in wire animal cages with less privacy or comfort than in Nazi concentration camps.

The U.S. and Canadian governments rejected Karzai’s demand arguing that the abuse of detainees at Afghan prisons was widespread and unacceptable. They would not transfer detainees to Afghan facilities. The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission stated that President Karzai’s government did not have the finances or ability to operate the Parwan prison. Those held in the NATO prison would be better off to stay where they were.

In October 2011 the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan released a report which concluded that there was widespread abuse of detainees in the prisons run by Afghan authorities. President Karzai’s secret police was accused of systematically using torture. But there is no recognition by NATO governments that torture takes place in NATO facilities.