Don't Forget Iran, but the Real Nuclear Threat Will Be Pakistan

In 1995, Crimson Tide presented a scenario to the world that seemed alarmingly possible.

Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia had done a poor job of securing its nuclear arsenal. With Boris Yeltsin, occupying the Russian Presidency, no strong leadership existed to contain the threat of rogue elements within the Russian military seizing control of nuclear arms and using it for their own ends.

As a conflict with separatist Chechens stoked nationalist fires in Russia, the threat seemed to continually grow until Vladimir Putin ascended to the Presidency.

Putin has critically undermined the fragile Russian democracy. But he brought stability and cohesion to the Russian military.

In the film, Lieutenant Commander Ron Hunter (Denzel Washington) is chosen by Captain Frank Ramsey (Gene Hackman) to be the executive officer of the USS Alabama, a nuclear submarine being deployed to act as a preemtive strike force in the event that a rogue Russian general attempts to launch nuclear weapons he has seized control of.

The secnario deteriorates while the Alabama is at sea, and they receive orders they would otherwise consider unthinkable: they are to launch their missiles to preemptively destroy missiles which reports have indicated are being fuelled for launch.

However, in the midst of an encounter with a Russian attack sub, an Emergency Action Message to the Alabama. They are left with a message fragment that could indicate an order to fire at different targets, or to abort launch.

Hunter insists that the Alabama must reestablish radio contact to confirm its orders. Ramsey is adamant that, in absence of new orders, the orders to launch stand.

Each man is weighing different sides of a nuclear holocaust. If Ramsey is right, Russian rebels are preparing to fire nuclear weapons at the United States, and must be stopped. If Hunter is right, the Alabama risks setting off a nuclear war that otherwise won't happen.

The chances of such a scenario playing out in Russia today are coparatively remote.

While increasing tension surrounding Iran's nuclear program have stoked fires of nuclear conflict, the more likely scenario is that Pakistani nuclear weapons fall into the hands of the increasingly-active Pakistani Taliban, or perhaps even by rogue elements of the Pakistani military itself.

In the Crimson Tide secnario, it's inferred that the rebel general is leaked nuclear launch codes from within the Kremlin itself.

In a Pakistani scenario, it's most likely that, if leaked to the Taliban, any codes necessary to launch nuclear weapons would be handed over directly by the ISI.

As the security climate in Pakistan continues to deteriorate, it's more and more likely that the Crimson Tide scenario will be played out in Pakistan rather than Iran or Russia.

While Iran's nuclear program very much does pose a theat to global peace, it's the weapons that Pakistan already possesses that may pose the greatest threat to global peace and security.

No one in their right mind likes it. But so long as any prospect, whatsoever, remains of Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into the hands of malevolent forces, the capacity to launch preemptive nuclear strikes will remain necessary.

Who Will Pay for Britain's Nuclear Deterrent?

British Tories in accounting quarrel over nuclear subs

With the Cold War now over for more than twenty years, some would expect that the debate over nuclear submaries would be question whether such weapons are needed at all.

In Britain, however, under their Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government, this is not the question. Rather, the question regarding the Trident II submarine -- the model of nuclear sub being developed to replace Britain's fleet of Trident Submaries -- is how they will be budgeted.

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has declared that they will be budgeted for out of the Ministry of Defence's existing budget. Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for Defence, wants a budget exemption for the Trident II, and wants the project to be funded from another part of the budget.

In a move that has created friction with Osborne, Fox has made discussion of the matter quite public.

"Ultimately, all our defence capabilities have to be paid for," Fox announced. "Which bits are paid, over what timescale, is part of the discussions we are having and I'm not going to entertain them in public. I have enough time entertaining them in private."

"The Trident costs, I have made it absolutely clear, are part of the defence budget," Osborne later responded. "All budgets have pressure. I don't think there's anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence."

The Ministry of Defence is alreay responding to their budgetary pressures in a manner that may leave some Britons feeling uncomfortable. The British armed services will sed up to 16,000 personell. The air force is expected to be particularly hard hit by reductions.

Britain's fleet of helicopters -- crucial at a time when Britain remains engaged in the war in Afghanistan -- may be cut by up to 20%.

Fox likely would not have to make as many hard decisions if he receives his sought-after budget exemption for the Trident II.

Despite the push to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia, some may argue that the Trident II is not necessary at all. In a perfect world, they would not be mistaken.

But the world is not perfect, and they are mistaken. With Iran seemingly continuing its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and with North Korea threatening nuclear responses to joint US/South Korean naval exercises, the end of the Cold War has not yet resulted in an alleviation of nuclear tensions.

Then there is the matter of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal.

Right now, the global situation regarding nuclear weapons is as tense as it has been in 20 years. There seems to be little reason to expect that the situation will reverse itself anytime soon.

Accordingly, the British Conservatives need to stop fighting over how the Trident II will be paid for, and need to get on with securing Britain's nuclear deterrent for a coming time when it may be desperately needed once again.

Cold War Mentalities Demand Weapons That Can be Watched

As tends to be the trend more than ever, the Watchmen director's cut incorporates additional footage into the film.

While the bulk of the new scenes actually deal with the character of Rorschach, the additional scenes also expand greatly on the character of Dr Manhattan, and shed interesting light on his relationship with the Comedian.

The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) and Dr Manhattan (Billy Crudup) form something of an odd couple in the Watchmen. The Comedian is nihilistic and sociopathic, while Manhattan seems largely indifferent to the plight of humanity. In their own way, each is fundamentally disconnected from their central humanity.

The two are shown together fighting in Vietnam, a conflict won in the alternate timeline of the film because of Manhattan's involvement. Yet it quickly becomes apparent that Manhattan has no idea why he's exploding Viet Cong guerillas so effortlessly. He could just as easily be exploding Muslim mujahideen on behalf of the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, the Comedian is skullduggery embodied. In the film's opening credits he's even depicted assassinating John F Kennedy.

While Dr Manhattan clearly represents the sheer mass intimidation of the nuclear deterrent, the Comedian represents the activities of the world's intelligence services, spy agencies, and covert "black ops" forces.

In time, Dr Manhattan becomes a figure greater than the United States' entire nuclear arsenal, and in time greater than the United States itself. Meanwhile, the Comedian slips into obscurity, his exploits the subject of state secrets.

Dr Manhattan, in the eyes of the US government, is a weapon too overwhelming to be kept secret, and controlling him is considered to be of paramount importance. The government even attempts to force Laurie Jupiter, aka the Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman) to devote hersef to keeping him satisfied and compliant with the government's wishes.

The far-less-powerful Comedian, meanwhile, is effectively discarded after use, and slips into the kind of obscurity that powerful states reserve for their ugliest secrets.

This has become the state of affairs in the post-Cold War world: with the exception the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan, nuclear weapons are being sought not as a means of protecting themselves against an imminent threat, but as a means of keeping one's enemies in line.

Iran, for example, is seeking nuclear weapons not as a means of defending itself against an imminent threat -- as the United States' and Israel's primary antagonisms with Iran revolve around the country's nuclear weapons program -- but rather as a means of intimidating the world into giving in to its demands.

With an individual like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad holding the Presidency of Iran, Iran is as likely to use nuclear weapons to intimidate the world's smaller states than they are to reserve them as a defensive weapon against the US or Israel.

Just like the fictional United States of The Watchmen, they won't keep those weapons secret. It's what they do in the dark -- often to their own people -- that they'll keep secret.

There Is No Inevitable Fate

"There is no fate but the one we make."

This message is at the heart of Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

The film picks up years after the original Terminator left off. Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) is in a psychiatric hospital in order to protect the public from the violent outbursts of her alleged psychotic delusions, and her son John (Edward Furlong) is in the care of foster parents.

Sarah lives in fear of the day when Skynet will either annihilate mankind with a nuclear attack or send another Terminator to kill her or her son. John, meanwhile, is living a rebellious life, angry at his current predicament.

This all changes the day that an extremely advanced terminator (played by Robert Patrick) is sent back in time to kill him. In place of Kyle Reece -- killed in the first movie -- the resistance sends a captured terminator (Schwarzenegger) back in time to protect him.

Allusions to Cold War tensions emerge for the first time in Terminator 2 as the terminator recounts for Sarah and John a more precise telling of how Judgment Day comes to pass. Skynet is designed initially as an automated pilot for stealth bombers, but eventually is placed in control of the entire defense grid of the United States -- including its arsenal of nuclear weapons.

When Skynet becomes self-aware, it responds to attempts to shut it down by launching nuclear weapons against the former Soviet Union. The notion of Mutually Assured Destruction is exploited by an entity that suddenly views the destruction of humankind as its best survival strategy.

Upon being rescued by John and the T-800, Sarah's first impulse is to slip into Mexico, away from Judgment Day's primary nuclear blast zones, in an effort to survive the initial attack.

Eventually, she decides instead to attempt to stop Skynet from ever being created by killing Myles Dyson (Joe Morton), the computer developer who will eventually create Skynet.

That attempt marks a turn in the film's plot in terms of the ideology of inevitability.

In Preempting Dissent, Greg Elmer and Andy Opel argue that preemptive action -- whether it be militarily preempting the actions of a rogue state or preempting political protests through the use of police power -- is predicated on a sense of inevitability.

In Terminator 2 James Cameron seems to reject this thesis, for a reason that seems evident to nearly anyone who thinks critically about that thesis. Preemption can only be justified if whatever it is aimed against can be prevented.

By striking against John Connor in the past, Skynet acts on the belief that its defeat by Connor in the future can be prevented. By striking against Skynet in the present -- by destroying all the research that leads to its creation -- John and Sarah act on the belief that Judgement Day can be prevented.

In choosing to collaborate with the Connors in the destruction of his work, Dyson shows a maturity that one wonders if many inventors would share -- destroying his life's work in order to prevent his life's work from taking billions of lives.

One may wonder what kind of a world we would live in today if the creators of the nuclear bomb had shown the same kind of restraint, or had heeded the warnings of Albert Einstein, whose theory of relativity actually made the splitting of the atom possible.

When the T-800 collaborates in its own destruction at the end of the film -- it cannot self-terminate, but it apparently can assist in its own termination -- it echoes Dyson's restraint.

That a machine with no real sense of human compassion -- that instead learned to mimic human compassion under John's orders -- could better comprehend the importance of such restraint than some of the arguably finest scientific minds humankind has ever produced should remain unsettling to virtually anyone.

Of course, the act of striking against a looming threat in order to avert it requires a specific amount of certainty -- first, that the threat itself can be averted, and certainty that the threat has been averted.

Preventing the weapons that humankind has created in order to defend itself from instead destroying us could never be accomplished in one fell swoop, so long as human minds remain intent on pursuing the means to destroy one another.

If Ever The Twain Shall Meet...

...John McCain and Barack Obama could beat swords into plowshares

In a recent speech delivered in Prague, Barack Obama called for the global elimination of nuclear weapons.

"I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama announced. His stance remains at odds with American nuclear policies that weakly pursue non-proliferation elsewhere in the world -- in places such as Iran and North Korea, while failing in Israel, India and Pakistan -- while continuing to maintain stockpiles of nuclear weapons at home.

Those aresenals have long been maintained under the pretences of deterrence.

In a more reecent speech, John McCain called fof continued work on the US anti-ballistic missile shield.

McCain's comments were made in response to a recent missile launch by North Korea. "I believe there is no more compelling argument for missile defense capability than what just happened with the North Korean launch," McCain explained.

Many intellectuals, such as Freeman Dyson, have long opposed the missile defense shield -- otherwise known as the Strategic Defense Initiative -- because they argue that such counter-measures can only lead to increased proliferation by the United Statess' nuclear opponents.

Under conditions in which the United States continued to maintain nucear weapons, and especially under a doctrine that allows for first use of nuclear weapon, this was certainly true.

But with the Cold War long over, and the American nuclear doctrine that allowed for first use but not first strike -- reserving the right to use nuclear weapons to repel an invasion by the now-non-existent Soviet Union -- clearly outdated, a new possibility has evidently presented itself that was never present during the Cold War: the combination of SDI with complete nuclear disarmament.

Considering that the missile shield has yet to work, and whether or not it ever will work remains questionable, this may be a moot point.

But a successful missile defence shield would allow the United States to wean itself off of what the Plowshares movement calls "the idolatry of nuclear weapons".

The Plowshares movement -- the name given to the largely-Catholic movement that vandalizes nuclear weapons sites and pours their own blood on them as an act of civil disobedience (even if an act of civil disobedience fused with vandalism) argues that nuclear weapons became a false idol when the United States became politically and psychologically dependent upon them. Moreover, they argue this "idolatry of nuclear weapons" has become ecclesiastical, as few American politicians (at least until now) will refute the need for such weapons.

When Plowshares activists damage missile components and missile sites with hammers they are acting to help bring the prophetic events of Isaiah 2:4 to fruition. This passage reads:

"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

Their spilling of their own blood -- usually drawn for weeks in advance of their protest, and smuggled in bottles -- is meant to symbolize Jesus Christ's self-sacrifice at the time of his crucifixion.

Clearly, the Plowshares movement does this in pursuit of a national redemption -- one similar to the kind that the Biblical Christ offers through his death and resurrection.

Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain have been shy about their Christian religious beliefs. Many of those in the Plowshares movement -- who, if anything, enjoy increased legitimacy in the post-Cold War world -- must feel encouraged by each man's support for nuclear disarmament.

McCain has declared his support for Obama's disarmament agenda, although Obama remains lukewarm to the missile defence shield.

Barack Obama needs to understand that, although costly, a successfully-developed issile defence shield would grant the United States the security necessary to pursue complete disarmament.

The United States unilaterally disarming will not rid the world of nuclear weapons. France, Britain, China, Russia, Israel, India and Pakistan will continue to have them. Iran and North Korea will continue to pursue them.

While the threat of a nuclear launch against the United States -- or any other western country -- is nearly non-existent today, it cannot be ruled out that there will not be such threats in the future. The United States needs to be prepared to meet them, and nuclear deterrence has clearly become an oudated model.

It's also important to note that, according to Christ's own example, the United States turning its nuclear cheek wouldn't entail passively accepting evil, but rather retaliating nonviolently -- in the case of missile defence, through the destruction of incoming missiles.

Realistically, SDI and nuclear disarmament are policies that can only be pursued together.

With any luck, Barack Obama and John McCain share the wisdom to recognize this.

A Dr Strangelove For All Times

Stanley Kubrick laughs in the face of nuclear war

For nearly 50 years after the conclusion of World War II, the world lived in fear of nuclear holocaust.

It was at the very height of this fear -- in 1964 -- that Stanley Kubrick produced Dr Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

In this classic film, Kubrick made the case that the terrors inspired by nuclear weapons were minor compared to the fear that should have been inspired by the human frailty, stupidity and greed of those in control of the world's nuclear arsenals.

The film begins auspiciously, as orders to attack the Soviet Union are issued to American bombers circling at their advance staging points.

When told to issue attack orders Captain Lionel Mandrake (played by the incomparable Peter Sellers) is immediately skeptical. When he's told orders to go to condition red are not an exercise, he seems perplexed by the very idea. Later in the film he insists that the orders simply must be an exercise.

His suspicions that General Ripper (Sterling Hayden) isn't on the level eventually lead him to confront him. When he deduces that Ripper is acting under his own prerogative Mandrake insists on calling the bombers back under his own authority.

Ripper has prevented this, but Mandrake displays what may -- in its own way -- be the only sane response to the prospect of nuclear war. Disbelief is the only sane response to the prospect of initiating nuclear warfare with its inevitable promise of mutual annhiliation.

There's certainly something both unsettling and contradictory about the notion of "nuclear combat", as expressed by Major TJ "King" Kong (Slim Pickens).

Nuclear war promised little resembling combat, instead merely offering a mutual exchange of overwhelming firepower.

In the situation room at the Pentagon, General "Buck" Turgidson (George C Scott) seems to buckle under the weight of the stupidity inherent in the system's design. In an effort to take human judgement out of the realm of decision making in regards to nuclear war the chiefs of staff have left themselves entirely unable to recall the bombers. Having sacrificed command in control ironically in the name of command and control, they've rendered themselves almost entirely impotent in the face of impending disaster.

The idea that a pair of doomsday weapons could actually be less destabilizing than common human frailty and stupidity is an unsettling (if amusing) idea, but that is precisely the idea Kubrick puts forth with Dr Strangelove.

When confronted over the United States' own doomsday device by Soviet Ambassador Alexi de Sadesky (Peter Bull), President Muffley seems to legitimately believe there is no such device. Hilariously, Sadesky says his source was the New York Times.

Then again, after the long and arduous ordeal that was the George W Bush Presidency, it seems far less than implausible that a newspaper would know more about that's going on in the United States than the President.

More humourously yet, the Soviet doomsday weapon is designed to detonate not if anyone activates it, but if someone attempts to deactivate it. The idea seems rather simple -- that, left unimpeded, doomsday devices would provide a stabilizing influence over nuclear affairs. In fact, the attempts to contravene nuclear holocaust lead instead to an increasing threat level.

As Freeman Dyson has noted, efforts to contravene nuclear holocaust through projects such as the Strategic Defense Initiative had not the stabilizing influence its designers would have hoped, but rather a destabilizing influence -- leaving Soviet leaders with few viable alternatives other than to build enough missiles to overwhelm SDI in order to eliminate the possibility of a retaliation-proof American attack.

(It's important to remember that American nuclear doctrine allowed for first use of nuclear weapons, while Soviet doctrine did not.)

SDI clearly wasn't a doomsday weapon. However, like a doomsday machine, SDI reveals the shortcomings of the notion of deterrence. Deterrence, as described by Dr Strangelove (Sellers again) is the production of fear in the minds of the enemy -- making them too afraid of retaliation to even dare a first strike.

Making the enemy too fearful only spurs them to create new weapons in order to reestablish a balance of power -- or even to re-tip the balance of power in their favour.

In the end, this kind of fear leads to a state of affairs in which annhiliation is nearly inevitable.

The same vein of thinking applied to the construction of nuclear arsenals can also be applied to the post-war environment, just as Dr Strangelove does when he dreams up a plan in which survivors of a nuclear war would take refuge in mineshafts, under conditions in which women would drastically outnumber men, and be encouraged to breed vigorously.

In the end, President Muffey and his administration simply allow the weapon to detonate, revealing another factor that led to a destabilization of the global nuclear order -- the belief that one could establish a favourable post-holocaust order, even one beneficial to oneself.

In Dr Strangelove, Stanley Kubrick reminds us that the only thing more terrifying than nuclear weapons are the people who were given control of them.

A Dr Strangelove For Our Times

Warning: the following post contains significant spoilers about the film The Watchmen. Those still interested in seeing this film should consider themselves forewarned.


Threat of nuclear holocaust looms over Watchmen

As time passes since the end of the Cold War, nuclear weapons have drifted further and further from the human imagination.

Since the prospect of nuclear holocaust has become a thing of the past the perceived relevance of nuclear weapons to international affairs has diminished.

The recent release of The Watchmen -- originally written by Alan Moore during the Cold War -- may inspire the reemergence of nuclear weapons back into the human imagination.

The ticking of the doomsday clock hangs heavily over The Watchmen. Woven immaculately in with the film's plot against the hunt for a hero killer is a plot about an alternate history Cold War in which the fate of the world hangs over jockeying between the United States and the Soviet Union over Afghanistan.

In this history, Richard Nixon has been elected President for three consecutive terms -- despite the unconstitutionality of the proposition -- the United States won the war in Vietnam, and Dr Manhattan (Billy Crudup) keeps a protective vigil over the world, wielding powers that conceivably allow him to avert a nuclear war.

Dr Manhattan essentially represents the ultimate Doomsday weapon. Throughout the film, he is credited with preventing the Soviet Union from carrying out the full extent of its ambitions for fear of the United States launching a nuclear reprisal with near impunity.

To emulate the language used in Dr Strangelove -- and reiterated by Freeman Dyson in Weapons and Hope -- Dr Manhattan presents both a doomsday gap and a superhuman gap which the Soviet Union cannot fill. The United States even uses him to win the Vietnam war -- many of the Viet Cong insist on surrendering to him personally, believing him to be a god.

This sentiment is echoed by a nuclear scientist in the film who insists that "...'God exists and he's American'."

However, he takes that sentiment to a logical conclusion when he adds, "If that statement starts to chill you after a couple of moments' consideration, then don't be alarmed. A feeling of intense and crushing religious terror at the concept indicates only that you are still sane."

In many ways, the existence of an interventionist God could -- and maybe even should -- terrify even the most faithful religious believer. The notion of God as a citizen or even partisan of any particular country should be considered even more terrifying.

The film presents Dr Manhattan as humanity's only hope -- the one thing that prevents the two most powerful forces on the planet from unleashing nuclear armageddon upon the planet. Dr Manhattan replaces the doctrine of MAD -- Mutually Assured Destruction -- with a doctrine of Unilaterally Assured Protection.

Yet the principle of Unilaterally Assured Protection does nothing to avert nuclear proliferation. If anything, UAP encourages further proliferation. As a fictional version of Eleanor Clift notes at the start of the film the idea that Dr Manhattan will prevent nuclear holocaust provides both Cold War beligerents with the motivation to make an open-ended commitment to nuclear proliferation.

The United States can do so secure in the notion that, if a nuclear war were to occur, they could expect Dr Manhattan to protect them first. The Soviet Union can be expected to do so out of fear -- hoping that they can build enough bombs to overwhelm Manhattan and the United States in a preemptive strike and destroy the entire American nuclear arsenal before it can be launched in retaliation.

(Although it's imporant to note that the nuclear doctrine of each country -- Soviet doctrine allowing for first strike but not first use of nuclear weapons and American doctrine allowing for first use of nuclear weapons but not first strike -- could have been expected to prevent such an outcome, provided they do not change.)

Even under Manhattan's protection, as Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode) notes, there are no guarantees. Even if Dr Manhattan stops 99% of the bombs, the remaining 1% would still kill every living thing on Earth.

It's worth noting that Dr Manhattan's promise of Unilaterally Assured Protection renders him akin to the Strategic Defense Initative -- the United States' proposed anti-nuclear missile shield. Freeman Dyson noted that techologies such as SDI led to three possible futures: an arms control future, a technical follies future, and a "live and let live" future.

In the real world, American commitment to the SDI led to enhanced tensions between the United States and Soviet Union that led to renewed commitment to anti-proliferation and arms reduction treaties.

In Watchmen, however, Dr Manhattan -- the god-like missile shield in human form -- upsets the delicate balance of power maintained in the real-world Cold War. Yet what emerges isn't an arms control future, a technical follies future (the extent of Dr Manhattan's power renders him immune to technical folly) nor a "live and let live" future.

Instead, Dr Manhattan's existence leads to a desperate future in which each side measures their ability to sneak enough atom bombs through the protective shield to annhiliate the other side.

The existence of the ultimate deterrent -- Unilaterally Assured Protection -- does nothing to reduce tensions.

But protection which is unilaterally assured can also be unilaterally withdrawn. Resultingly, humanity would be faced by a continuing need to ensure that Dr Manhattan continues to care about humanity. But there is no guarantee that anything that powerful would continue to care. It most certainly wouldn't need to.

When Dr Manhattan and Silk Spectre (Malin Ackerman) split up, Manhattan retreats to Mars where he indulges himself in the watch building exploits of his past.

With his last human link to the world severed, Dr Manhattan seems to feel no more motivation to protect the world. The protection he once unilaterally assured is now unilaterally withdrawn.

In the absence of the ultimate deterrent, the Soviet Union makes their move on Afghanistan. In response Nixon sets a two-day deadline for Dr Manhattan's return -- something considered akin to setting a deadline for God's intervention -- after which Nixon will give the order to launch a nuclear barrage of the Soviet Union.

In the end, Adrian Veidt seems to conclude that the only way out of the dilemma is to convince both sides to become united in their terror of Dr Manhattan -- something akin to uniting rival believers in terror of God. Oddly enough, Dr Manhattan reaches agreement with him. One could only wonder if an interventionist God would be so generous.

Michael Byers and the Neo-Conservative Bogeyman

Bali, Bono, and Bush -- oh, my!

When Canadians want in-depth analysis from an intellectually lazy ideologue, they need look no further than Michael Byers.

In what appears like it could be a concentrated effort by the Toronto Star to rally public opinion in favour of defeating the sitting Conservative government, Byers does what Byers has done best -- twisting the facts to find fault with absolutely everything about Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government:

""So, how does it feel to be the citizen of a rogue state?"

The British professor asking the question was serious.

We were in Cambridge, England, and yet the words "Kyoto," "Bali" and "Canada" were on many lips.

For on the other side of the planet, Environment Minister John Baird was blocking an agreement that would have bound the world's wealthiest countries to specific targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions after 2012 – when the Kyoto Protocol expires.

Canada, traditionally a proponent of multilateral co-operation and environmental stewardship, was thumbing its nose at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 2,500-member scientific body that had recently warned that the planet faces "abrupt and irreversible" damage unless greenhouse gas emissions are stabilized by 2015.

Canada was also ignoring the pleas of Kevin Rudd, Australia's new prime minister, who explained that an agreement was necessary because "there is no plan B; there is no other planet any of us can escape to.""

Yes, Michael. When the Prime Minister of Australia calls on us to sacrifice our economic future in the name of a panic-stricken pipe dream, we should reply "ready, aye, ready."

But, as he'll later allude, when the President of the United States calls on us to participate in the battle against terrorism -- as much a threat to Canada as any other country -- we should tell him to "fuck off" on principle alone.

Right.

"Instead, the Canadian delegation embraced the stubbornly unilateral, anti-environmental stance of U.S. President George W. Bush. They mimicked his demand – always intended as a deal breaker – that any specific binding targets include developing states."

And yet Byers never seems to want to explain why, precisely, requiring developing countries to contribute to the fight against climate change should be a deal-breaker. Or, rather, why it shouldn't.

Perhaps he'd like to overlook that most of the world's poorest countries also have the most lax environmental laws. Yet, in the name of staving off an "imminent environmental catastrophe" that is unproven to actually be imminent, he would issue such countries a free pass.

That is, fundamentally, the wrong approach by any regard.

"The move caught some foreign experts by surprise. Canada had previously shown the good sense not to join in Bush's most egregious mistakes, including the Iraq War.

But then Stephen Harper became prime minister, with views on foreign policy that parallel those of American neo-conservatives. Like them, Harper sees the Kyoto Protocol – arguably the most important treaty ever – as "essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations."

Harper's Bush-like views extend beyond climate change. In July 2006, he described the far-reaching destruction of Lebanese infrastructure as a "measured" response to the abduction of an Israeli soldier, souring our relations with Arab states and precluding a diplomatic role for Canada in the Middle East."

Of course, Byers is conveniently ignoring the fact that Israel was also responding to rocket attacks perpetrated by Hezbollah against civilian targets -- a war crime by any regard. Then again, Byers' analysis, as usual, depends on ignoring key facts.

"He has also picked unnecessary quarrels with China over human rights, Russia over the Arctic and Iran over ambassadors, rather than seizing opportunities to constructively engage these increasingly important states."

One may wonder how it is that, in an opinion article stressing, in part, Canada's need to lead on human rights, why Byers would dismiss quarrels with China over that very issue to be unnecesssary? One may wonder why Byers would dismiss Canada's confrontation with Russia over arctic sovereignty, considering that he actually grudgingly admitted, during a speech in Edmonton, that the Harper government has been the best of Canada's recent governments in regards to this issue. One may wonder why Byers would want to condemn Harper for recalling Canada's ambassador to Iran in protest to the treatment of the Zahra Kazemi case while he simultaneously condemns the government for refusing to seek leniency for Canadians facing the death penalty abroad. There's also a little something to be said for how Iran treats its prisoners -- a point seemingly lost on Byers despite the amount of protest he's raised over alleged Canadian complicity in the torture of Afghan prisoners of war.

The answer, it turns out, is actually very simple: his misgivings have nothing to do with human rights, arctic sovereignty or diplomacy. They have everything to do with ideology.

Of course, when waging ideological warfare against conservatives in print, Byers clearly takes no shame in sinking to any and all depths in order to link Harper to the political left's favourite omnipresent bogeyman:

"In Afghanistan, Harper has stubbornly opposed negotiations with dissident groups, shown a casual disregard for the rights of detainees, and seems to view the mission mostly as a way of currying favour with the United States.

Why else would his defence minister, Peter MacKay, invite the U.S. ambassador along for a Christmas visit to Canada's troops in Kandahar?"

Other than the fact that the United States and Canada are allies in the war in Afghanistan? We wouldn't know, mr Byers. Why don't you tell us.

"Closer to home, Harper has refused to repatriate Omar Khadr, a Canadian child soldier arbitrarily imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay. He has curtailed the practice of seeking clemency for all Canadians sentenced to death abroad. He's even sought to curtail the civil liberties of Canadians by extending our anti-terrorist laws – now, more than six years after 9/11."

But why does Byers have nothing to say about the fact that the anti-terrorist laws in question not only were enacted by a majority Liberal government, but also about the fact that the sunsetting of the laws in question has proven to have had a detrimental effect on the Air India inquiry -- the search for justice in the worst terrorist attack ever perpetrated upon Canadians.

Why does Byers have nothing to say about the fact that Khadr was, at 15 years old, a trained terrorist fighter who had already drawn blood in the battlefield? Faux-progressives like Byers may hold a good deal of disdain for the detention of enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay, but they should not fail to recognize that , whether they like it or not, Omar Khadr is an enemy combatant. If Byers wants to go so far as to suggest that Khadr should be issued a "get out of jail free" card, he should remember the experience Algeria has had with released terrorists.

Furthermore, one may wonder what to make of his suggestion that Canada should try to impose its views regarding human rights vis a vis the death penalty on the United States when he's already suggested that confronting China over human rights is "unncessary".

Of course, Byers wouldn't be a proper ideologue if his arguments didn't range from the specious and hypocritical to the outright fickle, like so:

"In September 2003, the cover of The Economist showed a moose in shades under the banner Canada is `cool'. Can anyone imagine us earning the same accolade today?"

That's right. That's what Canadian foreign policy is all about. It's not about supporting the interests of Canadians abroad -- it's about making Canada cool.

Readers may roll their eyes at their own discretion.

"Thanks to Harper, Canada has become the pliant instrument of a failed U.S. presidency. We are now, for all intents and purposes, a vassal state."

Despite the fact that Harper has actually stood up to the United States on a number of issues, including Byers' beloved arctic sovereignty pet issue.

But Byers now gets to the point. We can find out what all of these various intentional half-truths and flip-flops are all about:

"But in the same way that Harper's government has hijacked our foreign policy, so could a new government bring us back on course."

Yet one wonders what to make of this claim when they consider the "hijacked" foreign policy isn't really all that different than that of the previous Liberal government: Afghanistan, leading in the establishment of climate change agreements abroad while taking precious little tangible action at home and funnelling billions of dollars in foreign aid through unaccountable international organizations.

Somehow, a new government will be completely different, even if mr Byers can't assure us as to how.

"Canada, with its large and resource-rich territory, robust economy, and diverse and internationalized population, could exercise a considerable and beneficial influence on the world stage.

On climate change, geography gives us the potential to be a leader in wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power. Let's change our tax system to favour sustainable energy sources, and stop the lunacy of unrestrained development in the Alberta oil sands. Let's recognize – as the Danes and Germans have – that those who make technological advances first, reap the greatest gains.

Instead of dragging our heels on emissions reduction targets, let's be bold and brave. Let's decide – as Norway has – to become a carbon neutral country by the middle of the century."

Yeah, Michael. We all know how successful Norway has been on meeting its Kyoto obligations.

"Binding targets are not the problem. The problem is the lack of political courage to speak straight to Canadians and to implement fundamental changes to the way we work and play."

No, Michael. The problem is that governments that claimed to be concerned with climate change spent the better part of a decade doing absolutely nothing about it, and now campaign rigorously on the very same issue they did absolutely nothing about, expecting Canadians to believe they will somehow do something other than absolutely nothing in future, while foreign policy "experts" like Michael Byers insist such a government would do something other than absolutely nothing, past performance to the contrary.

"In Afghanistan, it's time to move from a combat-oriented approach to one that focuses on negotiation, peacemaking and nation-building.

It's time to ensure that Canadian soldiers are never complicit in prisoner abuse by stopping detainee transfers until the Afghan prison system has been comprehensively reformed."

This seems like a novel approach, but one wonders what the alternatives are. Would Byers like to suggest that Canadian troops establish a prison to hold prisoners of war in Afghanistan, thereby usurping a function of the state?

Progressives used to agree that imperialism such as that was a bad thing. Real progressives probably still would. Byers and his cabal of faux-progressives? Not so much.

"It's time to move NATO troops out, and UN peacekeepers in.

And then, let's get serious about the "responsibility to protect" where it's needed most: in Africa.

Let's make sure the UN peacekeeping missions in Darfur and Congo succeed. Let's help bring peace to northern Uganda and a change of government in Zimbabwe. Let's ramp up our overseas development assistance to those countries burdened by drought and disease."

Once again, Byers engages in the pacifistic fantasy of leaving the war effort (war is such a dirty word) to embark on a peacekeeping mission in a country in which the government has decreed that UN peacekeepers would be treated as foreign invaders. China, with whom confrontation over human rights is "unnecessary", is also involved in Sudan.

To top it all off, Byers then indulges himself in pontificating on yesterday's issues:

"On the perennial problem of nuclear proliferation, let's show leadership by admitting the obvious and formally declare Canada to be a nuclear-weapons-free zone.

Let's use the UN Law of the Sea Convention and Arctic Council as opportunities to make the Far North a zone of co-operation. Let's work with the Russians, Americans and Danes on mapping the Arctic Ocean and ensuring that shipping and resource development there is safe and environmentally sound."

For once in this sad little excuse for an op/ed article, Byers actually has a decent idea. But then he goes right back to beating the Bush-as-bogeyman drum, suggesting that, somehow, it's Canada's responsibility to manage the United States economy.

"As for the United States, let's face up to the economic mess that Bush has created with his tax cuts for the rich and vast increases in military spending.

Instead of shrugging our shoulders in dismay or complacency, why not seize the moment to change the balance of rights and obligations in NAFTA? The renegotiation of international agreements is a normal consequence of shifts in relative power, a shift that in this case favours Canada.

We are the United States' largest trading partner and primary source of secure energy, making them as dependent on us as we are on them. And our economy is now outperforming theirs.

So, let's rid ourselves of the NAFTA provisions that mandate U.S. access to Canadian oil and gas and require that the prices charged for energy exports to the United States not exceed those charged to Canadians. Let's opt out of the mechanism that enables U.S. companies to initiate binding arbitration whenever their businesses can claim to have been detrimentally affected by Canadian laws – including laws designed to protect our health and environment."

One wonders who Byers imagines western Canada, in particular, will export oil and gas to, considering that it isn't economically feasible to export it overseas, or even to Eastern Canada.

"To suggest this is hardly anti-American. It is merely to advocate exactly what they would do were they in our position.

On all foreign policy issues, let's not be afraid to conduct our own analyses, to have our own national debates. In the end, we'll likely decide to work with the United States about 95 per cent of the time."

And yet, when the Harper government elects to work with the United States on initiatives actually started under Liberal governments, they're somehow "pandering to U.S. interests".

Sheesh.

"On the remaining 5 per cent, let's not be surprised when the U.S. government expresses displeasure or even makes threats. That's what good negotiators do, as they prepare for the next bargaining round.

It's what happens over the long term that matters. And it's in the long-term interests of everyone – including Americans – to have a strong, friendly, yet independent country to the north of the United States."

It certainly is. But how does one balance this particular assertion on Byers' part against past practices on behalf of the Canadian government -- which seem to represent a sort of "good ol' days" that Byers is eager to return to -- which actually made us weaker and less independent than the practices of the current government?

The dreamland that Byers lives in and reality as it actually exists never seem to fully resemble one another. But Byers only proves that in the conclusion of his article:

"Bono said it best: "The world needs more Canadas." But the Irish rock star meant a particular kind of Canada – a Canada that is sovereign, compassionate, committed to peace, willing to co-operate, yet also prepared to lead.

This year, let's elect a government that shares this vision. Let's shake the "rogue state" label – before it sticks."

Sovereign. Compassionate. Committed to peace. Willing to cooperate. Prepared to lead.

Ironically for Byers, that does sound an awful lot like Canada's current government to those who, unlike Byers, aren't twisting fact to ideological ends.

Canada has strengthened its sovereignty by strengthening its military -- which provides us with the ability to defend that sovereignty -- and by re-staking its claim to its arctic sovereignty. Canada has proven itself to be compassionate by resolving to prevent the Taliban from returning to power in Afghanistan. Likewise is its commitment to peace (vis a vis ridding the world of states that harbour terrorists) and its will to cooperate with the NATO coalition. Canada has proven its leadership not only in establishing a productive framework within which everyone will be required to contribute to the fight against climate change (which is a serious issue, if not the imminent catastrophe that Byers and his fellow panic-mongers insist), but also within the United Nations, NATO, the Francophonie and the Commonwealth.

And Canada has done all of this under a Conservative government.

If Byers wants to twist facts and spread half-truths in order to try to suggest the opposite, that's certainly up to him. But it certainly casts serious shadows of doubt on the credibility of the Toronto Star that they would print his article without even bothering to fact-check.

Then again, perhaps they, like Byers, are simply hoping that Canadians will be so ideologically fixated that they won't bother to check the facts.

But this does speak volumes about Byers and his claim to a progressive world view. A true progressive -- or so many of us are led to believe -- would never engage in such blatant misinformation in pursuit of their political agenda. Fostering a debate based on such factually ignorant dogma is actually quite a regressive act, not a progressive one.

When one recalls that Leo Strauss -- a prominent neoconservative thinker who is largely credited with establishing this school of political thought -- advocated in favour of "the noble lie", it seems that Byers and the neoconservative bogeyman that he seems to fear so much aren't that dissimilar at all.