Hill Times

Canadian foreign policy: on course but needs fine tuning!
We're equally effective to help resolve conflicts in Central Africa
Published October 20th, 2003

The Arab League faces a choice: live in the past and perish or face the future and flourish
Published October 6th, 2003

Where was the Alliance when Bill Sampson was in Saudi jail?
Dumping on diplomats is a convenient way to score points on domestic political scene
Published September 29th, 2003

Musharraf and Karzai come calling on Chrétien
Pakistan will seek further financial assistance to help bolster country's economy
Published September 22nd, 2003

Postwar dilemma in Iraq and some options
The UN can play an important role in the transformation of Iraq into a democratic state
Published September 15th, 2003

The Middle East roadmap is only hope for peace in the region and beyond
Published August 11th, 2003

Americans, British face serious credibility test over weapons of mass destruction
Published July 28th, 2003

Whither U.S.A.?
U.S. doesn't know what it's scared of
Published June 30th, 2003

A tale of two countries, Cuba and Myanmar
Published June 23rd, 2003

Bravo to U.S. President Bush
Bush also tackles issue in first term as opposed to waiting until safety of his second term
Published June 9th, 2003

The Middle East roadmap
No shortage of hard-liners on both sides, only the brave and committed will deliver peace
Published June 2nd, 2003

Canada must act now in the Congo
It remains to be seen what Canada will do to take lead to help bring order, avoid genocide
Published May 26th, 2003

Bush's Middle East road map a commendable first step
But he may be gambling heavily
Published May 19th, 2003

NMD suddenly lands with a giant thud
Published May 12th, 2003

Bush's bent on resolving Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Published May 5th, 2003

Democracy in Africa
Much-needed nurturing of relations between Canada and the African continent
Published April 28th, 2003

Iraq aftermath
Hope for democratization
Published April 21st, 2003

Iraqi chargé d'affaires may apply for refugee status
Mamdouh Mustafa lives in Rockliffe with his wife and two children
Published April 14th, 2003

Canada's principled foreign policy
Published April 7th, 2003

International diplomacy is a two-edged sword
U.S. would not now want to push its two friendly neighbours too far
Published March 31st, 2003

Canada's stand is not anti-American
Iraq war has fermented some uncomfortable upheavals on international scene
Published March 24th, 2003

UN will survive current Iraqi crisis
Other than doomsday prophets, world leaders are keeping UN in perspective
Published March 17th, 2003

Canada's respectable compromise
Published March 10th, 2003

So, Saddam has to go
For the sake of his people
Published March 3rd, 2003

World order is shifting
Published February 17th, 2003

U.S. needs UN to ensure safe, secure world
Published February 10th, 2003

Canada is right to stay the UN course
While the U.S. engages in dialogue with North Korea, it wants to attack Iraq
Published February 3rd, 2003

Resolution 181 is still valid
Published December 9th, 2002

NATO membership comes with a heavy price tag
What alternative is there to NATO? The answer, the European Union
Published December 2nd, 2002

The next step in Iraq
What will Canada do, if the U.S. proceeds to take military action against Iraq?
Published November 18th, 2002

EU admits divided country of Cyprus and yet rejects Turkey's application
What part of Cyprus will become a member of the EU? The Greek or the Turkish?
Published November 4th, 2002

Keith Martin desperately seeking limelight
Published October 21st, 2002

Canada's federal politicians are in a big quandary over Iraq
It persists in not knowing what to do if and when the U.S. decides to launch a unilateral military attack
Published October 7th, 2002

How are Bush's observations any different from Jean Chrétien's?
Published September 30th, 2002

Iraqis deserve tranquility
Published September 16th, 2002

British colonial injustices continue to haunt troubled Zimbabwe
Problems could have been avoided had international community helped finance land distribution programs
Published August 19th, 2002

So what part of Cyprus will become a member of EU?
Published August 5th, 2002

The 800 million Africans deserve better treatment
Africa needs someone to champion their cause to create a level playing field in order for them to finally compete fairly on the world trade scene, it is time
Published June 24th, 2002

Listen up, NATO has a role to play in preventive diplomacy
And preventive diplomacy can sometime only be effective if one is carrying the proverbial big stick, Canada
Published June 3rd, 2002

Sensational CBC 60 Minutes story fuels stronger attacks on Canada's refugee and immigration policies, negative stereotype
Published May 6th, 2002

October 20th, 2003

Canadian foreign policy: on course but needs fine tuning!
We're equally effective to help resolve conflicts in Central Africa

How should the world view Canada? What kind of image does Canada reflect on the international stage? That is the challenge and task of a nation's foreign policy.

In the case of Canada, its current foreign policy accurately reflects the values it practices at home. These are not a nebulous set of values, but highly-respected and cherished principles drawn from history and current practices. Nothing describes Canadian values better than late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's vision of a "just society" -- a society of compassion, tolerance, promoting peace and respect for human rights, helping build consensus and bridges as well as bridging gaps. These are the values Canadian diplomats put into practice at various embassies and at international institutions such as the United Nations. The end result is an ongoing and growing respect for Canadian values -- call it middle power, soft power or whatever power! While such values garner respect for Canada, the problem is Canada is not doing enough of it.

Take the practice of consensus or confidence-building. There is no nation better-positioned to play a more active role in various parts of the world to engage in active consensus-building -- a well-known practice among our aboriginal people. Last week's trip by Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham to strife-torn island-nation Sri Lanka to promote dialogue and help resolve the ethnic conflict is the kind of role that Canada needs to play more often on the world stage. Canada is well-respected by various parties to play and equally effective to help resolve conflicts in Central Africa.

During his recent visit to Ottawa, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf strongly hinted for Canada to play a more active role in the lingering Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan. Given the goodwill that Canada enjoys in the Middle East, it is disheartening to note the lack of action in the Middle East to help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Prime Minister Chrétien has made positive and practical contribution towards helping resolve this simmering conflict by offering to provide Canadian troops to help monitor an international border. For without a clearly demarcated, identified, and internationally respected border, there is no end in sight to the continuing conflict which is consuming so many innocent lives on both sides. It will be naïve to think that Canada can do it alone. However, in concert with other like-minded nations, Canada can help guide the peace process, not only in the Middle East, but in many other parts of the world. For instance, former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy's often lonely but successful fight achieved an international treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, thereby saving thousands of innocent lives around the world.

The Human Security Network, the brain-child of former foreign affairs minister Axworthy, unites like-minded countries like Chile, Norway, and South Africa, in building consensus on how best to tackle various issues confronting citizens of the world. This network is now viewed as an important forum for conflict-prevention. Similarly, former prime minister Joe Clark, during his tenure later as foreign affairs minister, pursued activist foreign policy vis-à-vis South Africa and the Middle East. Perhaps the next Prime Minister should consider summoning both these seasoned foreign policy geniuses to the Senate and appointing them ambassadors-at-large to assist in conflict-resolution processes. This would also be a signal of return to the non-bipartisan approach to foreign policy which has come under onslaught recently. For instance, under the Progressive Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, Canada refused to buckle under the U.S. pressure and break relations with Cuba or impose an economic embargo on the island nation.

When Canadians talk about an "independent foreign policy" they usually refer only to a policy different from the United States. While this may be understandable given the overwhelming presence in military might and economic influence, Canada also needs to look to developing a foreign policy independent of France and Britain. While we may share many values which we could jointly employ in our foreign policy initiatives, we also need to develop a distinct Canadian perspective in the pursuit of foreign policy.

This domestic compassion component is reflected in the development assistance programs of Canadian foreign policy. A desire to help the less fortunate to attain better standard of living by providing better health and education facilities are two elements of this rewarding exercise. Prime Minister Chrétien's NEPAD initiative to help kick-start the Africa economies and achieve better governance, to name only two objectives, is a most welcome gesture.

In defence, Canada's priority needs to be to defend our border on three coasts and not to rush off and buy equipment to achieve inter-operability with the U.S. Our focus should be on developing expertise in specific areas, such as communications, in order to help play a role in any military or peacekeeping operation. This would be a practical approach in response to the new realities on the world scene.

If there is a glaring lack of coordination and comprehension in the Canadian foreign policy element: it is culture. Canada is lacking on how best to reflect what is Canadian culture. The current Canadian culture encompasses aboriginal throat singing, Bhangra dancing and West Indian steel drums. Yet, for the most part, only ballet and western orchestras makeup the cultural component. It must reflect the changing demographics and the new face of Canada.

Canada is an experiment in social engineering on how to develop a society enjoying peace, order and good governance. The eyes of the world are on us. If we succeed, we can export this lesson in our foreign policy spearheaded by Bill Graham -- a realist, nurtured by academic idealism, yet a practical foreign minister.

October 6th, 2003

The Arab League faces a choice: live in the past and perish or face the future and flourish

"The Arab World is going through a terrible phase," the Arab League's Secretary General Amr Moussa lamented when visiting Ottawa last week. He was talking about the political problems in the Middle East , but he may just as well have been talking about the economic malaise and social discontent in the Arab World.

He told the House of Commons Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict is "facing a dead end at this juncture. We don't see any light at the end of any tunnel." This is a depressing and an unfortunate signal of possible undesired developments in the Middle East .

The Middle East , consequently the Arab League, is consumed by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But if that is all this regional body of 22-member states founded in 1945 is going to focus its energies on, at the expense of socio-economic development in the Arab world, then it is failing the Arab peoples. Secretary General Moussa did mention in passing the empowerment of women, concern about developments in Iraq and attacks on Islam.

The Arab League, like any other regional grouping, is made up of diverse member-states with uneven economic development and diametrically opposed ideological viewpoints. They range from pro-West monarchist Jordan to its antithesis Libya , from purely economically driven Emirates to largely ideologically-motivated Syrians. From agriculturally rich and fertile Iraq to desert-dominated Mauritania . And then, of course, there is Saudi Arabia : still staunchly pro-West (at least at the official level), yet beholden to promoting Islam, with the presence of Islam's two holy shrines in Mecca and Medina . And until recently, Saudi authorities turned a deaf ear to religious leaders at regular Friday prayers preaching hatred against non-Muslims, some even calling for the slaughter of the infidels! Contrast this to the presence of religious minorities in countries such as Egypt , Morocco , Lebanon and Jordan -- the last two represented in Ottawa by ambassadors of Christian faith. The economic and ideological diversity of the Arab nations reflected in the Arab League need not be the albatross it currently is, but should be used to harness for economic and social development for its member states.

Because of its preoccupation with political issues, the Arab League is failing to deal with issues on top of the agenda in other regional groupings such as ASEAN, Organization of American States and even the African Union. The 10-member states of ASEAN, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, are engaged in promoting intra-state trade and promoting trade deals with other regional trade blocs. The 34-member Organization of American States (OAS), of which Canada is a member, is also now focusing on promoting hemispheric trade and investment, which hopefully culminate in a Free Trade Area of the Americas . The Organization of African Union, last year changed its name to African Union, revamped its Charter by changing priorities from fighting colonialism to dealing with issues of economic development and good governance. It is only recently, a couple of weekends ago, that the Arab League held a rare U.S.-Arab Economic Forum in Detroit , Michigan to boost trade with and attract investment from the U.S. This is precisely the role the Arab League needs to play -- promoting greater intra-state trade as well as attracting foreign investment to help kick-start the engine of growth.

It needs to make drastic changes to the education system too. While religious education is important, knowledge of modern know-how and technology is essential.

The Arab League has thus far also lagged in promoting social change among its member states. While the Secretary General talked of women empowerment, one of its member states Saudi Arabia does not allow women to even drive, let alone vote! At the other spectrum, socially dynamic states such as Morocco and Jordan are fast reaping benefits of keeping up with social change and empowering all segments of the population through education and democratic change.

Other than economic and social development the Arab League has a big challenge to ensure good governance in its member states with guarantees of individual freedoms and democratic rule so desperately lacking in its member states.

While achieving consensus in as diverse group as the Arab League is not easy, Secretary General Moussa is to be commended for proposing the creation of an Arab Parliament -- a progressive idea which could not only allow for consensus but also demonstrate democracy in action.

There is no denying the growing anti-Western sentiment in the Arab world and an equal increase in suspicion of Islam in the West. Call it clash of civilizations or clash of values and ideas, the Arab world has to abandon the political quagmire and promote understanding of the west and its values as the western societies are doing in understanding the Arab world.

The Arab League has a significant and monumental role to play to help the Arab world keep pace with the fast-paced developments in the rest of the world. The Arab world cannot rest on the laurels of the past. For if the Arab League cannot help reinvigorate itself and provide modern leadership it may be unceremoniously reduced to the relic of history.

September 29th, 2003

Where was the Alliance when Bill Sampson was in Saudi jail?

Dumping on diplomats is a convenient way to score points on domestic political scene

Dumping on diplomats is a convenient way to score points on the domestic political scene, but it garners little or no sympathy or bears results on the international scene. Unfortunately, this important element of international diplomacy is lost on the Official Opposition party, the Canadian Alliance, in particular, on its foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day.

Ottawa 's diplomatic corps will soon be reduced to a rump if every time a Canadian is allegedly mistreated abroad, and Canada expels the offending country's ambassador. Yet ejection of an ambassador is precisely what the Canadian Alliance proposes each time there is allegation of mistreatment of a Canadian in another country.

There are almost 3,000 Canadians currently incarcerated in 120 countries, almost three-quarters of them in the United States mostly for drug offences, according to Canada 's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Millions of Canadian tourists and businesspersons rely on consular services offered by Canadian embassies in 180 countries. The question is what course to take to offer maximum assistance to Canadians abroad when they land in trouble. Recently Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham wrote that "generally, it is not public denunciations or threats that are most effective, but consistent behind-the-scenes diplomacy." The Canadian Alliance obviously disagrees with this approach and much too often acts irresponsibly by ignoring this advice and immediately calling for expulsion of the offending country's ambassador.

Expelling an ambassador -- declaring him or her persona non grata -- is a very serious signal of rift between two countries, which can take decades to heal, if ever. And what, if anything, is achieved at the end of such an exercise -- a tit-for-tat which would force the other country to also expel the Canadian ambassador as a face-saving device at home. During the height of the Cold War, Canada often declared diplomats from the Soviet Union persona non grata -- revoking their right to stay in Canada or visit thereafter. This drastic action was taken when Soviet diplomats were caught spying.

Other than expelling an ambassador, a country can temporarily recall its ambassador as a signal of dissatisfaction with the other country's policies or treatment of its citizen. Such action was taken recently when Canada recalled its ambassador to Iran , following the death in an Iranian jail of Canadian-Iranian photojournalist Zehra Kazemi.

A country can also launch an international effort to pressure the offending country to abide by international legal norms. Canada has launched a campaign to build international consensus to convince Iran to launch an investigation to bring the perpetrators of Kazemi's death to justice. It seems to be working since Iran 's foreign minister assured Mr. Graham in New York last week that the government has charged one of the intelligence officers interrogating Ms. Kazemi, with "pre-meditated" murder. Similarly, Canada was recently successful to extract Albertan Bruce Balfour from custody following a speedy trial in Lebanon . The Russian government was also pressured by then Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley to successfully prosecute the intoxicated Russian diplomat responsible for the death of an innocent Ottawa lawyer in a road accident. In all these cases, the Canadian Alliance foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day was first off the mark calling for expulsion of ambassadors, yet offering no alternative plan of action.

In the now famous case of British/Canadian Bill Sampson, imprisoned in Saudi Arabia and allegedly tortured for involvement in a bomb attack in Riyadh , there are again calls by the Canadian Alliance MPs to expel Saudi Arabia 's Ambassador Dr. Mohammed Al-Hussaini. The question one asks is: What would be achieved if such action was taken? First, in retaliation, the Saudi government most likely will expel the Canadian ambassador in Riyadh . It may even lead to the closure of the respective embassies. Who then will then look after the interests and welfare of some 8,000 Canadians working in the oil-rich kingdom? It does not help to kill the messenger. By keeping lines of communications open with Saudi Arabia , Canadian officials were able to provide Mr. Sampson the needed consular services during his detention.

According to reliable sources, the Saudi Ambassador facilitated the visit of Cabinet Minister Don Boudria in September 2002, during which he visited Mr. Sampson in his cell and also met with the de facto Saudi Arabia 's ruler Crown Prince Abdullah as well as other senior Saudi officials. Minister Boudria is understood to have expressed concern about Mr. Sampson's prolonged detention to every Saudi official he met.

Similarly, in July 2003, the Saudi Ambassador, on very short notice, arranged for Quebec Liberal Senator Pierre De Bané to travel to Saudi Arabia with a message from Prime Minister Chrétien for Crown Prince Abdullah. This could not have been facilitated without the Saudi diplomatic presence in Ottawa . Furthermore, at the suggestion of the Saudi Ambassador, Liberal MP Dan McTeague travelled to London , England and successfully obtained a letter in which the victim's next of kin forgave Mr. Sampson. This letter was instrumental in obtaining royal clemency resulting in the release of Mr. Sampson. The Saudi embassy also arranged for Toronto psychiatrist Richard Oliver to visit Mr. Sampson three times in jail in Riyadh and on five occasions issued visas for the elder Sampson to travel to Saudi Arabia to see his son. All this would not have been possible without the presence of the Saudi embassy in Ottawa .

While a Liberal cabinet minister Don Boudria, a Liberal Senator Pierre DeBané, a Liberal MP Dan McTeague, and Bloc Québécois MP Stéphane Bergeron all made trips to Saudi Arabia to successfully seek Mr. Sampson's release, not a single Canadian Alliance MP made any such effort, including the Alliance MP representing Mr. Sampson senior's B.C. riding.

The quiet behind-the-scenes diplomacy secured Mr. Sampson's release and not the fiery Canadian Alliance rhetoric designed for domestic political consumption. The proof is in the pudding.

September 22nd, 2003

Musharraf and Karzai come calling on Chrétien

Pakistan will seek further financial assistance to help bolster country's economy

Two internationally-pronounced personalities and darlings of the West willing to wage war on terrorism, while struggling with democratic deficit in their respective countries, will be in Ottawa this week. Pakistan 's President Pervez Musharraf meets with Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Cabinet ministers and officials on Sept. 25 and 26, followed by a one-day visit the next day by Afghanistan 's President Hamid Karzai.

While no bilateral agreements are expected to be signed during the visits, international security situation and the fight against terrorism are likely to be two major topics of discussion. Discussions will also focus on other global issues as well as exchange of ideas on how to further enhance Canada‚s existing cordial relations, with these two struggling democracies.

Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham visited both countries on Sept. 5 and 6 and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien is expected to visit Canadian troops in Kabul at the end of his Asian visit next month. Canada reopened its embassy in Afghanistan last month with a resident ambassador and Afghanistan has done likewise since November 2002.

Canada has provided some $500-million since 1990 for reconstruction of Afghanistan . There is no doubt that President Karzai while thanking Canada for this financial support will be seeking more funds and also asking ISAF to increase its operations outside of urban areas of Kabul and Kandahar .

The porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan enabling attacks on U.S. and Western forces in Afghanistan and the presence of Osama bin Laden remain a source of worry for the U.S. and its allies in their fight against international terrorism. There is also concern about Pakistan 's army officers and its intelligence service (ISI) agents suspected of harbouring Taliban sympathies. Pakistan was one of three countries ( Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates being the other two), which established diplomatic relations with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and was the last of them to break the relations and that only when the Taliban were on the run.

But its partnership with the West to fight international terrorism and help make Afghanistan a secure democratic state has helped Pakistan gain respectable stature on the international scene. Pakistan has benefited from cancellation of its multi-billion-dollar debt to various western countries and financial institutions in return for its help to fight terrorism. One can assume that during his visit to Ottawa President Musharraf will seek further financial assistance to help bolster his country's economy.

While Canada 's $350-million two-way trade with Pakistan is not significant, the country's nuclear capability, geopolitical situation, role in fighting terrorism, and the presence of a sizeable Pakistani origin community in Canada , makes it an important ally.

Pakistani President General Musharraf, who came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999, resulting Pakistan 's suspension from the Commonwealth, has since gained acceptance in the West following Sept. 11 attacks in the United States , not only for his role and support in fighting terrorism but for acting as a bridge between the West and Islamic world. General Musharraf is ideal for this role for he is seen as a reformer -- the likes of Turkey 's Kamal Ataturk. Musharraf, who was born in Delhi , India on Aug. 11, 1943, spent his early childhood in Ankara , Turkey , where his father was a diplomat from 1949 to 1956 and is understood to be greatly influenced by Ataturk's sweeping reform which launched Turkey on the path to modernization and secularism. The expectations are, therefore, high for President Musharraf to play an important role to being the bridge and promote understanding between the West and Muslim world. However, he is hindered by the strong and rising support for fundamentalist Islamic parties in Pakistan . This support is a reaction to the presence of Western military forces, not only in neighbouring Afghanistan but now also in Iraq . The war on terrorism has further accentuated differences between the West and Muslim world given that the United States has yet to convince a single Muslim or Arab country to deploy troops or police in Iraq .

Pakistan 's porous border with India is also point of much contention, with India accusing it of sending armed insurgents into the disputed Kashmir territory. It is alleged that tensions developed between General Musharraf and then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif after he ordered the withdrawal of Pakistani-backed militants in Kashmir . While India insists on resolving the Kashmir dispute bilaterally with Pakistan, time has come for it to be internationalized after half a century of failure to resolve it. Canada should play a role for developing a consensus in the international community for such an action.

Both these two key visitors to Ottawa , ruling strategically placed countries can help play a defining role for the West and Muslim countries to find a way out of the current confrontational clash of civilizations and values. And Canada , as a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multicultural middle power, seems to be playing the key role of an interlocutor.

September 15th, 2003

Postwar dilemma in Iraq and some options

The UN can play an important role in the transformation of Iraq into a democratic state

"Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding? Or will it be irrelevant?" asked U.S. President Bush when seeking backing for his attack on Iraq . However, within four months, the United States has come full circle recognizing the important role that the world body can play in resolving international conflicts and threats to world peace and security and assist in nation-building. While it is no time to gloat at the American-British military occupation's seeming failure in Iraq , nevertheless it is appropriate to take stock of the current situation in Iraq .

There is no doubt that at the end of the day, Iraqis will be better off than when they endured abuses under former president Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime. But, the challenge remains: how to get to the stage when Iraqis will be in charge of their own affairs.

In not seeing a military solution to the situation in Iraq , both Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham have rightly dismissed the deployment of any Canadian troops in Iraq , though Canada has pledged $300-million in assistance for Iraq .

The dilemma in Iraq is that the United States, having taken the initiative with Britain but without the support of the United Nations to successfully remove Saddam Hussein, is now finding it difficult to go it alone on many fronts in that country. With Saddam Hussein still at large, the 342 confirmed coalition casualties so far and daily killing of a couple of coalition soldiers, and the extension of tour of duty for the U.S. Forces is contributing to the reported low morale among American and British forces. All this has culminated in a call for additional 5,000 soldiers but a few countries seem willing to heed the appeal.

There are currently 20,000 soldiers from 29 countries, mostly Poland , deployed alongside the American and British forces. The British are dispatching 3,000 additional troops to join the 11,000 already there. Will the mere presence of additional coalition troops resolve the complicated security situation, including porous borders with Iran and Saudi Arabia through which anti-U.S. fighters are allegedly streaming in, the Sunni-Shia tensions, as well as attacks by remnant elements of Saddam's Baathist Party loyalists? Critics charge that instead of eliminating terrorism, the presence of western, Christian occupying troops in Iraq is a magnet for attacks by Islamic militants. Iraq , which previously had not known terrorism except that of Saddam Hussein's against his own people, is now being transformed into fertile ground for terrorism. There are currently 55,000 Iraqi police and security personnel working with the coalition forces and President Bush has pledged to increase these to 184,000 by 2005.

Other than finding ways to cope with the challenge of military personnel, financing the occupation is yet another headache and drain on the U.S. treasury. In response to President Bush's Sept. 7 request for additional $87-billion for the war in Iraq , U.S. Senator Robert Byrd told a recent Senate Armed Services Committee, "Congress is not an ATM. We have to be able to explain this new, enormous bill to the American people." The U.S. military mission made up of 150,000 troops is costing $1-billion a week. And, the projected oil revenues are not coming in as projected, partly because of the on-going sabotage of Iraqi oil pipelines.

Add to the above concerns the fact that no weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which were claimed to present imminent danger, have yet been found in Iraq, no al-Qaeda links to Saddam have been verified, it is no surprise, therefore that the political approval ratings of both U.S. President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are plummeting. Mr. Bush's approval rating hovers around 55 per cent, down almost 30 points from April when he launched the attack on Iraq , and Mr. Blair enjoys the confidence of merely 23 per cent of the British public. The recent shoot-outs between the U.S. and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan runs counter to claims of having routed the terrorist outfit and further erodes confidence in political leadership in the U.S. and Britain.

Finally, while a 25-member governing council is a good reflection of Iraq 's demographics and a 15-member Cabinet of Iraqis has been appointed, there is no hint of a speedy transfer of political power or a timetable for holding of elections to transfer control of the country to the Iraqis. Although there is little recognition and much skepticism of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Cabinet, the 22-member Arab League welcomed Iraq 's foreign affairs minister Hashyar Zubari to their meeting in Cairo last week.

One hopeful sign in all this is a draft U.S. resolution currently being considered by foreign affairs ministers of the five permanent members of the Security Council under the guidance of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. The resolution calls for an international force to be sent to Iraq to operate under the U.S. command, and seeks financial contributions from UN-member states to help rebuild Iraq but with no guarantees that any of the member-states will have a decision-making role. Though France, a permanent member, and Germany , currently a member of the Security Council, remain skeptical of continuing to allow the United States to exercise exclusive control over Iraq . It is hoped a compromise can be found in the form of a UN resolution acceptable to the international community. The UN can then play an important role in the transformation of Iraq into a democratic state.

Optimists recount foreign powers' post-war role in Japan and Germany , which subsequently emerged as democratic and economically dynamic states. Realistically, Iraq is far from that goal, although with UN's involvement and its recent experience in nation-building in Afghanistan , Kosovo and East Timor could come in handy to bring normalcy to the lives of 24 million Iraqis at this crucial time in their country's history.

August 11th, 2003

The Middle East roadmap is only hope for peace in the region and beyond

Israeli and Palestinian prime ministers trekked to the White House, within a matter of days of each other last month to meet with United States President Bush - the driving force who is keeping the parties on the roadmap to peace in the Middle East .

It was the first visit to the White House for Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and eighth for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

With its hands full in Afghanistan and Iraq , and growing confrontation with a defiant alleged nuclear power North Korea , the Bush administration seems keen to break the impasse in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and is sticking to its resolve to create an independent Palestinian state by 2005. Such an entity is envisaged in the roadmap endorsed by the international community, including the European Union, the United Nations and Russia .

As leader of the sole superpower, President Bush is assuming responsibility for diffusing the simmering conflict, which could spark for a wider conflict. The protracted Israeli/Palestinian conflict also lies at the root cause for much of the resentment in the Arab/ Muslim world against the United States . It is because the United States is perceived to have been playing favourite with Israel but President Bush wants to be seen adopting an even-handed approach in resolving the conflict.

It will be the dawn of a new era for United States relations with the Arab/ Muslim world if it can help resolve the seemingly senseless feud which sees innocent civilians killed. From Afghanistan to Pakistan to Iraq and Indonesia , the United States will be perceived in a different light if it succeeds in taking the parties to the end of the roadmap.

While the road to peace in the Middle East is littered with discarded agreements and plans, the current roadmap offers the best hope with a built-in timetable for necessary actions to be taken. It is not an easy task and President Bush is gambling a fair amount of political capital in pursuing this roadmap. He seems to be succeeding, though there is much scepticism. He has successfully, through Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas, managed to convince suicide bombers to provide a reprieve from attacks against Israeli civilians. The June 29 pledge for "total cessation of violence" by Palestinian groups is holding. It is over a month now since the last suicide bombing.

Almost 50 years ago, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine, then under British mandate, into two independent states: one Arab, one Jewish, with the city of Jerusalem to be established as a separate entity under a special international regime and to be administered by the United Nations. Although a Jewish state - Israel , materialized in the following year in 1948, no parallel Arab state ever materialized. Therein lies the crux of the problem.

Canada voted for the above-mentioned UN resolution and recently offered a policing force which could monitor an internationally recognized border between Israel and Palestine . Israel rejects the presence of such an international force. Instead, Prime Minister Sharon's government is building a 700-kilometres fence at a cost of U.S. $1.5-billion to seperate the two peoples. President Bush has called this unilateral demarcation of the land by building a wall "a problem."

According to President Bush, "It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and Israel with a wall snaking through the West Bank ." Citing security concerns, Israeli Prime Minister told President Bush in Washington two weeks ago, "the security fence will continue to be built." In response, President Bush hoped "in the long term, the fence would be irrelevant."

It is time for Canada to wage in and help develop confidence-building programs for Israelis and Palestinians. Geography and history dictates that the two peoples have to live side by side. They may as well find ways to do so in peace. The one solution would be to draw the boundary at the internationally-accepted 1967 borders and place an international force to keep the two sides apart.

This will allow both states to build their economies and infrastructure and the international family of peaceful nations. If the Palestinians continue to be denied a state of their own, there is no end in sight to the carnage that will re-visit innocent civilians on both sides sooner than later.

The success of the roadmap will take away the raison d'être of the Osama bin Ladens of the world for fuelling hatred against the United States and will allow Americans to enjoy living in a terror-free world. When one lives in a society as free and open as that of the United States it is difficult to counter every terrorist threat or act.

Every American, Israeli, Palestinian - for that matter all of us deserve to live in a terror-free world. A major step to this end is to support the efforts of President Bush to see a successful conclusion of the journey of this roadmap with the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Canada needs to be more vocal in support of it.

July 28th, 2003

Americans, British face serious credibility test over weapons of mass destruction

Transparency is meant to be a basic tenet of democracy. But lack of it, especially in crucial foreign policy decisions can cause much consternation in democratic states.

Such is the case now as both U.S. President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair struggle to convince their respective citizens, of the necessity to have waged war on Iraq . It seems there was little or no transparency in the decision-making process and the one major reason -- presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the threat of their imminent use -- was based on faulty, forged and unsubstantiated intelligence.

It is not the first time, and unfortunately will not be the last, that political expediency sidelines rational judgment. The US went to war in Vietnam when Congress was misinformed over mis-reported firing at a U.S. naval vessel in the Gulf of Tonkin in the 60s. British prime minister Margaret Thatcher was in a haste to dispatch forces to fight in the Falklands in order to ensure her victory, not on the seas, but at the general election in Britain .

Currently, serious questions are being asked in the United States and Britain about the credibility of intelligence justifying attacking Iraq . No al-Qaeda links to the Saddam regime have been established, no trace of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has been found nor have any weapons materialized just as the United Nations inspectors had been stating, and no evidence or plan for the launch of an imminent attack has yet surfaced.

And in Washington, D.C., no one is willing to take the blame for President Bush's Jan. 28 State of the Union address, in which he told the world of evidence of Saddam Hussein buying Uranium "from Africa." It turned out President Bush was referring to Niger and the claim was based on forged and outdated documents at least a decade old. At first, the White House blamed the British for feeding this faulty intelligence. Then CIA Director John Tenet took the blame for not flagging the information before the President delivered the State of the Union address to Congress and the nation. A few days later, when it turned out that the CIA had indeed cautioned the White House against using the information in two separate memos dating as far back as Oct. 5 and Oct. 6, the blame was then put on Stephen Hadley, the deputy national security adviser for not deleting the false reference to the Niger uranium purchase from the State of the Union address.

In London , a similar -- pass-the-blame game is being played with a war of words between the national broadcaster BBC and Prime Minister Blair's Office. Mr. Blair's much touted dossier of evidence against President Saddam Hussein turned out to be nothing more than a forgery of a decade-old American student's PhD thesis. It has since come to be known as the "doggy dossier."

When a respected British scientist, Dr. David Kelly, who had been to Iraq at least 37 times as part of the weapons inspections teams, was quoted anonymously by the BBC questioning the validity of claims by Prime Minister Blair's Office of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, it is claimed the Ministry of Defence revealed his identity. By making the identity of the source public, it led to the alleged suicide of Dr. Kelly. Prime Minister Blair had claimed Saddam Hussein could launch weapons in "45 minutes" but the good Dr. Kelly challenged this in conversations with three journalists. While no one is taking the blame for making Dr. Kelly's name public, Prime Minister Blair's Office is understood to be wanting Defence Minister Geoff Hoon to take the fall. The British have set up an inquiry headed by Lord Hutton to look into this sorry saga.

While there may have been faulty intelligence conveniently used by leaders in both the U.S. and U.K., one ought not to question the existence of myriad of other reasons that required his removal, including history and threat of invasion of neighbouring countries. However, there are those who claim that while Saddam was a "threat to international peace," he was a "contained threat."

There is no doubt that sooner than later the Iraqis will begin to lead normal lives -- fear-free of the Saddam regime. The Coalition Provisional Authority -- better sounding name than an occupation force -- is attempting to deliver basic necessities to the Iraqi civilian population. It will take time to restore the long neglected infrastructure and provide water and electricity to the Iraqis. But there is understandable impatience on the part of the Iraqi people, who, perhaps unrealistically, were promised a better life far too soon.

While British and American troops are fighting to bring democracy to Iraq , leaders of democracies in London and Washington are realizing that credible foreign and defence policy decisions ought to be based on credible intelligence and as much transparency as possible.

There will, no doubt, be greater scrutiny in the future of any military decisions made in Washington , or London , or Paris for that matter. The Iraqi affair has, however, enhanced the credibility of one organization, the United Nations, which has come out unscathed from this whole affair.

June 30th, 2003

Whither U.S.A. ?

U.S. doesn't know what it's scared of

America is a strong, yet scared, but resilient nation as it celebrates its 227th anniversary of independence this week.

America is scared but it does not know what it should be afraid of. Should it be afraid of nations developing nuclear capabilities, or hostile Muslim/Arab countries or is the enemy within as Sept. 11 demonstrated. It must be extremely frustrating that almost two years after the Sept. 11 horror, ordinary Americans do not know who the enemy is. The orange to yellow to red alerts issued by the U.S. Homeland Security Office continue to play havoc with American life.

At least during the Cold War, there was a clearly identified enemy -- Communism, but not so now. Although President Bush has identified terrorism as the enemy No. 1, yet there is no firm shape or form to the enemy. Often it is a moving target -- from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein to Iran to North Korea . As evidenced by Sept. 11, the enemy could be within, at home, which makes Americans even more uncomfortable. It could be lurking in Mosques or as students at flying schools.

Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks is still on the loose. So is former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. The unknown whereabouts of these two arch-enemies of the United States further compounds the discomfort of Americans. How can they feel safe when these two "enemies" of the United States are still lurking out there perhaps even planning another attack.

The United States took the appropriate action to attack Afghanistan and dismantle the Taliban government. Ironically, this ruthless Taliban regime in Afghanistan was propped up and recognized by none other than three of the closest allies of the United States -- Pakistan , Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates . While the Taliban may be on the run, the task of restoring any semblance of a functioning society in Afghanistan is far from over, other than in the capital city Kabul and second large city Kandahar . While Bangladesh and Turkey are making significant troop contribution the United States is relying on troops from Australia , Canada and Poland to restore civility in Afghanistan . Why not deploy more troops from Arab/Muslim countries with the necessary cultural sensitivities?

Before securing the situation, especially security in Afghanistan , the United States successfully took on Saddam Hussein and now seems anxious to tackle Iran . It has for the moment backed away from confrontation with North Korea . One must recognize that such regime-change tactics are nothing new to U.S. foreign policy. They had been temporarily subdued after embarrassing revelations of CIA complicity in toppling and assassinating democratically elected leader Allende in Chile in 1973. Then, it was the crusade against Communism. But, what is motivating these adventures now? Is it the western/Christian versus Arab/Islamic divide -- or clash of religions and values? Is it a foreign policy driven by economics, in particular control of resources? Whatever it is, is not clear, and presents no clear pattern other than nefarious notion of fighting terrorism, at home and abroad.

Most of the Islamic world is bereft of any semblance of many basic freedoms and individual rights enjoyed and taken for granted in the West such as freedom of assembly, speech, worship, gender equality, and protection of minorities. By its overzealous pursuit of anti-terrorism agenda, the United States threatens to erode some of these very basic rights that distinguish it from the rest of the non-Western world. In this blatant clash of religions and values, the United States should not allow erosion of hard-won and long cherished "western values."

No one doubts the unchallenged military might of the United States , but it will take more than that to win the hearts and minds of the people in Afghanistan and Iraq and in the larger Arab/Muslim world. It will take resolve and skill to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which is the root cause of much of the resentment against the United States around the world.

There is concern that the United States is not playing ball with its traditional allies. The trans-Atlantic link is weakening as evidenced in recent verbal skirmishes in NATO, once the unquestioned defender of western values. Its relations with the European Union are weakening and its leadership questioned and challenged, albeit in hush tones, in many multilateral forums.

As the world leader, it is incumbent for the United States to take the lead and act alone as it did in the case of Iraq , despite the protestations of the United Nations. If it had not done so, Saddam Hussein would still be making life miserable for millions of his people and presenting a lingering threat to his neighbours. But as world leader, its future lies in collaboration with new allies and keeping trusted ones such as Canada on side. In this respect, it is rearranging its relations, gaining new allies such as Poland and dumping old ones such as France and Germany .

At the end of the day, no other country in recent history has guaranteed its citizens more freedoms than those enjoyed by the Americans. Therefore, while the United States lives on edge in this trying and challenging time in its history, it is only fitting and appropriate for all freedom loving people to support it at this moment in its history.

Happy July 4, America !

June 23rd, 2003

A tale of two countries, Cuba and Myanmar

Cuba and Myanmar (formerly Burma ) are two countries, oceans apart, on different continents, and Canada follows two divergent policies towards them. It is "constructive engagement" with Cuba , but isolation of Myanmar . Yet both these policies have had little impact on the leadership of the respective countries. President Fidel Castro has ruled Cuba since the revolution in 1959 and Myanmar 's military regime has retained control since 1988.

Cuba and Myanmar recently again attracted world attention for human rights violations of their citizens.

Some weeks ago Cuba arrested and summarily executed a handful of its citizens it claims were engaged in subversive activities against the state. A couple of weeks ago, the military regime in Myanmar re-arrested National League for Democracy leader and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi and placed her in protective custody following disturbances and killings during her visit to the north of the country.

The two countries show little or no sign of embarking on meaningful and sincere efforts towards democratization of their respective societies.

Cuba 's Peoples Power Assembly is elected with only a single candidate for each constituency. When the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won national elections in 1990 with an overwhelming majority, the governing military junta repudiated the results claiming a new constitution must be passed before power could be handed over. No such constitution has yet emerged thereby allowing the military regime to continue its rule.

Both countries are dictatorships with political prisoners and no intention of introducing reforms to encourage democracy and expression of freedom. Yet, in the case of Cuba , Canada maintains an embassy with an ambassador but not so in Myanmar . The Canadian embassy in neighbouring Thailand monitors developments in Myanmar . Canada has maintained unbroken relations with Cuba since 1945 and was one of the only two countries in the hemisphere (along with Mexico ) not to break relations with Cuba following the Cuban Revolution in 1959.

Canada encourages trade and economic links with Cuba but restricts any commercial activity with Myanmar . Two-way Canada-Cuba trade totalled $756-million, an increase of $12-million over the previous year. Canada is Cuba 's third largest global trading partner (following Venezuela and Spain ), and second largest foreign investor (after Spain ). Canada suspended commercial relations with Myanmar in 1988, along with support for Canadian firms doing business in the country.

Canadians make up the largest source of tourists to Cuba , with 400,000 visitors in 2001. The direct convenient flights from Ottawa , Montreal and Toronto to the sunny and pristine beaches of Varadero supply precious foreign exchange to the island government of President Fidel Castro.

Secretary of State Denis Paradis led a business delegation last November to the 20th Havana International Trade Fair where more than 90 Canadian companies were represented. No such Canadian commercial representation is supported by Canada in Myanmar . Minister Paradis' visit was the first ministerial visit in almost four years after a high-profile visit by Prime Minister Chrétien and former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy during which they failed to secure the release of Cuban political prisoners. Canada maintains an annual $3-million to $5-million development assistance program to Cuba but no such program exists in Myanmar . Canada , under foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, instituted an extensive assistance program geared towards democratic development but there is little or no result to show for it.

While Canada has been eager and willing partner for dialogue with Cuba it has shunned any such action vis-à-vis Myanmar . However, a week ago Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham attended a luncheon with Ottawa-based ASEAN ambassadors in the presence of Ambassador U Nyunt Tin of Myanmar . Myanmar was welcomed to the 10-country regional organization ASEAN in 1997 despite objections by the European Union and Canada . While the EU has reopened the annual dialogue with ASEAN despite the presence of Myanmar , Canada has not followed suit except the recent presence of Minister Graham at the ASEAN ambassadors' luncheon in Ottawa . It is not clear whether this is a new beginning or a one-time occurrence.

Canada remains concerned with trafficking and production of drugs which help fuel the coffers of the ruling generals in Myanmar . Myanmar is listed as the largest source of heroin entering Canada . But, a few years ago, Canada refused to attend an Interpol, the international police agency meeting in Myanmar , to deal with the drug problem. Japan is helping Myanmar farmers switch from opium growing to wheat cultivation and the European Union is spending five million Euros for similar crop substitution programs. The United States government is also helping the Myanmar government conduct anti-narcotic surveys. The Australian government is holding human rights workshops in Myanmar attended by government officials in the hope of the concept taking root in this important segment of society.

The question Canada has to answer is: why is it good to engage in dialogue with Cuba but not with Myanmar ? Unfortunately thus far the end result has been the same: no tangible results to show for Canada 's pursuit of policies in both Cuba and Myanmar . Perhaps it is time to revisit the question of when and when not to engage in dialogue with another country to bring about meaningful change?

June 9th, 2003

Bravo to U.S. President Bush

Bush also tackles issue in first term as opposed to waiting until safety of his second term

Bravo to President Bush! Because of his efforts, there is new hope and momentum in the Middle East to resolve the lingering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has claimed thousands of innocent lives on both sides.

The United States President whom some least expected to tackle international issues is doing just that. However, Mr. Bush is familiar with the region -- its complexities and challenges. As Governor of Texas, he visited Israel in the company of, among others, Paul Cellucci, then Massachusetts Governor and now Ambassador to Canada . Cynics citing foreign policy not to be President Bush's forté are reluctantly commending his foray into the murky minefields of the Middle East . He has also taken to resolve this simmering issue during his first term in office as opposed to waiting until the safety of his second term.

After last week's summits in Evian, Sharm el-Sheikh, and Aqaba, President Bush's Middle East Roadmap is on track. At the summit in Evian, he received endorsement for the roadmap from all the G8 leaders. Since coming to office, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has also spent considerable effort and time in gaining the confidence of the parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has been a strong proponent of resolving it. His Foreign Secretary Jack Straw mentioned the importance of settling this conflict when he told London Lord Mayor's Easter Banquet on April 30, "We will never establish lasting stability in the Middle East until its most intractable dispute is resolved: the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians."

The settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute will also take away much of the anti-American resentment in the Muslim and Arab world, which perceives the U.S.-backing of Israel as hindering Palestinians‚ desire for statehood. There is no dispute among international political observers that peace between Israelis and Palestinians will help tremendously in the fight against terrorism. It will take away the raison d'être of the terrorists that U.S. support for Israel is anti-Islam.

At last Tuesday's Sharm el-Sheikh meeting with select Arab leaders, President Bush sought and received assurances for them "to cut off assistance and the flow of money and weapons to terrorist groups, and to help Prime Minister Abbas rid Palestinian areas of terrorism." The following day in Aqaba at the meeting with President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas pledged "a complete end to violence and terrorism." He added, "Our goal is two states, Israel and Palestine , living side-by-side, in peace and security."

In response, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon said "there is now hope of a new opportunity for peace between Israelis and Palestinians," and added, "It is in Israel 's interest not to govern the Palestinians, but for Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state." On the contentious issue of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian areas, Mr. Sharon promised to "immediately begin to remove unauthorized outposts."

Both Israeli and Palestinian Prime Ministers also recognized the futility of a military solution.

With these pledges, the first stage of President Bush's roadmap seems to have been accomplished. However, for the roadmap to stay on track, it is important that it keeps going without any interruption despite occasional acts of violence. Otherwise, the process will become hostage to extremists and fanatics opposed to a peaceful settlement on both sides of the conflict.

One has to talk to one's enemy to achieve any semblance of peace. If one does not talk to one's enemy, who does one make peace with? In this regard, talks between arch enemy camps in South Africa , led by Mr. Nelson Mandela and then President de Klerk, provide a prime example of conflicts surrounded by fear, emotion and brutality which can be resolved through dialogue.

One major difference between President Bush's roadmap and previous attempts to resolve this conflict is the presence on the ground of a monitoring mission, led by newly-appointed Ambassador John Wolf, to ensure that parties are fulfilling their responsibilities. President Bush has also asked both Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, "to make this cause a matter of highest priority."

The roadmap embarks on the second to last phase until December, 2003 during which increased contacts will be established between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, including Palestinian elections and an international conference with the final phase resulting in a viable Palestinian state in 2005. Many contentious issues such as the final status of Jerusalem and the right of Palestinians to return to their former homes will no doubt feature in the tough negotiations.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has offered peacekeepers or military monitors, if and when the need will arise. Once provisional borders have been established the presence of such a policing and monitoring force will be essential to help them make permanent and secure. The Canadian Forces‚ communications technology could make a useful contribution.

At the conclusion of last week's meetings, President Bush said "great and hopeful change is coming to the Middle East ." But, he also cautioned "The journey we're taking is difficult, but there is no other choice." Nothing could be further from the truth and the initiative deserves all the goodwill it can muster.

June 2nd, 2003

The Middle East roadmap

No shortage of hard-liners on both sides, only the brave and committed will deliver peace

There is cautious but also growing optimism in the Middle East this week. The credit for it goes to United States President George Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. There is obviously a supporting cast of world leaders who have contributed to this week's unfolding of historic events.

While there is a sufficient amount of skepticism surrounding the Middle East Roadmap and its ultimate success, one is hopeful given the political capital the United States President is expending by visiting the troubled region and holding face-to-face meetings with the key players who can help resolve the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

One ought not to underestimate the challenges on the road to peace. Admittedly, the cynics of the Roadmap's success are not far-off the mark either. As the U.S. National Security Adviser, Dr. Condolezza Rice last week observed, it is going to be "a very long and difficult road." But according to her, "The President believes this is a new opportunity for peace at the end of the war in Iraq ."

Following the G8 Summit in France , President Bush will first travel to the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh on Tuesday, June 3, to meet with Egypt 's President Mubarak, Saudi Arabia 's Crown Prince Abdallah, Jordan 's King Abdullah, and Bahrain 's King Hamad. He will likely secure the same commitment as given last year by all Arab League members at their Beirut Summit in the Saudi Crown Prince Abdallah peace plan, recognizing the State of Israel and entering into relations, including trade, with Israel in return for an independent Palestinian state.

On Wednesday, June 4, President Bush will travel to Aqaba for bilateral talks with Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon immediately followed by a trilateral summit, "conditions permitting," cautions the White House.

Although Israel has expressed 14 reservations about the Roadmap, Prime Minister Sharon a week ago successfully secured his Cabinet's approval for the first time for the creation of an independent Palestinian state, by a vote of 11 to seven, with four abstentions. The Palestinians have endorsed the Roadmap without any reservations.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stunned his Likud Party legislators on May 26 when he told them, "To keep three-and-half million Palestinians under occupation is bad for Israel and the Palestinians. This cannot continue forever...We don't like the word, but this is occupation." The operative word in official Israeli circles thus far has been "administered" or "disputed" but not "occupied" territories.

With the Palestinian population expected to double in the next 20 years, Prime Minister Sharon is being realistic about the impact this will have on the concept not only of Israel as a Jewish state, but also on its economy. "Today there are 1.8 million Palestinians fed by international organizations," Sharon said, "Would you like to take this upon yourselves? Where will we get the money?"

There is no shortage of hard-liners on both sides willing to disrupt the peace process. But only the brave and committed will be able to deliver the much-coveted peace.

As is well-recognized, only Richard Nixon could travel and make in-roads into developing relations with China almost three decades ago, and two decades ago Zimbabwe could become independent only under British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, perhaps Ariel Sharon is the man of the moment, at age 75, to bring peace and security not only to his people but to the Palestinians and the region.

Fortunately, Prime Ministers Sharon and Abbas have met face-to-face twice already prior to their proposed joint meeting with President Bush this Wednesday.

Canada seems to be missing in all this hive of activity surrounding the Middle East peace process. Following the release of the Middle East Roadmap on April 30 by the Quartet -- the United Nations, the United States , the European Union, and Russia , Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham immediately welcomed it. He expressed hope that "even in the shadow of continuing violence and terrorism, the prospects for peace in the region will be bolstered by the release of the Roadmap."

However, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's web-site on the Middle East Peace Process has not been updated since April 24 and requests for information on Canada 's contribution to the peace process are yet to be answered. This is uncalled for, given Canada 's significant contribution to the peace process in the Middle East . Former Prime Minister Lester Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, as then Secretary of State for External Affairs, in resolving the Suez Crisis.

Canada has played an important role in both humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping operations in the region since the start of hostilities some five decades ago. It currently holds the chair of the Working Group on Refugees, an important and sensitive issue to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The fact that the leader of the sole superpower, United States President Bush, is willing to risk political capital on securing peace in the Middle East and give the process a much needed impetus gives one hope, notwithstanding an army of cynics. Who knows by the time President Bush hosts the next G8 Summit next year, probably in Texas , he would have succeeded to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

May 26th, 2003

Canada must act now in the Congo

It remains to be seen what Canada will do to take lead to help bring order, avoid genocide

Canada must act and act now in the Congo . For all its talk of wanting to be there when it counts, the time is now for Canada to take the lead and muster an international response to the daily killings and impending genocide in the Congo .

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien seemed to realize the urgency when he told a joint press conference with visiting French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, in Ottawa last Thursday, "We have an obligation. It is a very sad situation in Congo . We have problems in all over the world, and Africa is always neglected."

The Prime Minister promised Canada will collaborate with France and other countries to respond to the United Nations appeal for assistance to restore order to this vast and mineral-rich country of 52 million people.

Prime Minister Chrétien could not have a better team of experts on Congo than his foreign policy adviser Claude Laverdure who has served twice in the Congo the last time as Ambassador from 1988 to 1993. Canada 's Ambassador to France and Prime Minister's nephew Raymond Chrétien is equally knowledgeable having served in the Congo . He was also at the Ottawa meeting on May 22 with the visiting French Prime Minister where Congo must have come up.

It remains to be seen what Canada does to take the lead to help bring order and avoid genocide in Bunia in the Ituri region of the eastern part of the Congo on the border with Uganda .

The people of the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly known as Zaire , have not known peace and tranquility since gaining independence from Belgium in 1960. Belgian King Leopold ruled it as his personal fiefdom even naming the capital Leopoldville, now called Kinshasa .

Part of the problem stems from the fact the country is mineral-rich and fell prey not only to colonial, but became a pawn in the Cold War. The country produces cobalt, copper, cadmium, petroleum, diamonds, gold, silver, zinc, manganese, lead, germanium, uranium, radium, bauxite, iron ore, coal, hydroelectricity, and coltan which is used in computers and cellular phones.

In 1965, Joseph (later renamed himself Sese Seko) Mobutu seized power in a military coup established a most vicious dictatorial regime and ruled with the blessing of the West, especially the United States , until 1997. Apart from Zaire 's riches, its location provided an ideal launching pad for incursions into Angola and other countries unsympathetic to the West. However, at the end of the Cold War, Zaire was of no geo-political use to the United States and it abandoned it.

With the disappearance of U.S. support for President Mobutu, it did not take long to oust him in 1997 and be replaced with Laurent-Desire Kabila, who in turn was killed and succeeded by his son 32-year old son Joseph Kabila in January, 2001.

Young Kabila's efforts to bring about peace have not been successful because of interference from not only neighbouring countries but those from afar to use local militias as proxies: Rwanda is backing the Rally for Congolese Democracy (RCD) militia and Uganda backs the Movement for Liberation of Congo (MLC) faction. However, these Ugandan and Rwandan backed militias are united in opposing the Kabila government, while Angola , Namibia , Chad , and Zimbabwe are backing it.

The military action is based in the mineral-rich eastern Kivu province where the historic rivals Hema and Lendu ethnic groups are killing each other. The United Nations estimates that since 1999, some 50,000 civilians have died in the Ituri region alone and 2.5 million have died throughout the Congo since the beginning of the current phase of the conflict in 1998. Last week two UN military observers from Jordan and Malawi were killed.

The mandate of the 5,537 military personnel operating as MONUC -- the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is to expire on June 30, 2003. The European Union is considering UN request for peacekeepers. France has been asked for 1,000 troops but is asking other countries to join and wants deployment for only a limited period. It is commendable that a country like Uruguay has 700 troops in the Congo in the trouble spot Bunia and additional troops from Bangladesh and South Africa are expected to be deployed in July or August.

The South African government has been played a constructive role and was instrumental in bringing the warring factions to sign a ceasefire in Lusaka , Zambia , in July 1999. In keeping with the Lusaka Agreement, Ugandan troops withdrew completely from Congo last week. But their withdrawal led to 248 people being killed and 20,000 refugees followed the soldiers into Uganda for fear of personal safety.

Africans would rather have a country such as Canada , with no colonial baggage, at the forefront of efforts to help restore peace and order in the Congo than any former colonial power that often have their own agenda. Canada 's initiative will also help give currency to the Prime Minister's pet project NEPAD - New Partnership for Africa 's Development.

May 19th, 2003

Bush's Middle East road map a commendable first step

But he may be gambling heavily

"We will never establish lasting stability in the Middle East until its most intractable dispute is resolved: the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians," British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told London Lord Mayor's Easter Banquet on April 30, 2003. Of course, this observation comes as no surprise to observers of the Middle East . But the lack of any credible movement towards this goal surprises many.

U.S. President George Bush's Middle East Roadmap presented on the same day as Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's remarks is drawing some but not credibly heavy and convincing traffic on the road to a tangible peace. But then it is the Middle East -- a region with a history of hostilities and some claim time on its side.

President Bush has taken a commendable and responsible step to present the roadmap and dispatched his Secretary of State Colin Powell to the region for direct consultations. By so doing, he may be gambling heavily. But it is a gamble worth taking. Many a U.S. president, from Jimmy Carter and more recently Bill Clinton, have tried and come empty handed in their search for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But unlike his predecessors, President Bush has the political currency to effect change in the Middle East following recent U.S. action in Iraq .

Under President Bush, the United States defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan and removed President Saddam Hussein in Iraq . In so doing, in both instances, it helped liberate people living under these brutal regimes. People in the West, especially United States citizens, are surprised by the muted rather than the expected boisterous welcome for the U.S. troops. The reason while not simple, lies to a major degree in the perceived lukewarm effort by the United States to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If the American administration could put as much effort and energy to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it did into liberating Afghanistan and Iraq , it would receive a hearty and warm welcome in the Arab world. Until that happens, it will continue to face not only strained relations with the Arab world but also face serious challenges to its presence in the region, as evidenced by the recent bombing of westerners in Saudi Arabia .

Fortunately, the Americans are not planning to be long-term occupiers in Iraq . Unlike the British and French colonial empires, the Americans have declared their intention to install local government at the earliest.

The U.S. will do well to stake its future with its allies in the Middle East and concentrate in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In return for resolving this protracted problem, the U.S. will win the hearts and minds of the Arab world without firing a shot. No doubt, even here it will face challenges and resistance from Islamic fundamentalists who will want to turn it into a battle between the Muslims and infidels.

However, this challenge can easily be overcome because of the reservoir of goodwill that the U.S. can garner once it resolves the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This will help neutralize the Islamic fundamentalists, who constantly present a threat not only to the U.S. , but also to legitimate Arab governments. The U.S. and Arab world has enjoyed a close and mutually beneficial relationship during the Cold War and there is no reason for this to change.

On another front, the Arab world is also acutely aware that the United States is the only country that can help bring about economic development and prosperity to the region. An example of this is the close and mutually beneficial economic cooperation which the Saudi Kingdom has enjoyed with the United States . It is exemplary to the rest of the Arab world. Just as no one can deny that the economies of Japan , Korea , Israel , Taiwan and now China have prospered because of their cooperation with the United States and American investment has been the key to prosperity in these countries. On the other hand countries such as India , which fuelled anti-Americanism during the Cold War and aligned more with the now-defunct Soviet Union , have yet to catch up with the prosperous economies in the region.

Where does Canada fit in all this? Canada can and should play a cooperative and, where necessary, an actively-supporting role to ensure greater effort for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The resolution of this conflict will not only bring peace and prosperity to the region but also to the United States , Canada and be beneficial to the economies of Europe .

One of the first acts Canada must undertake is to re-open its embassy in Baghdad . It is imperative that Canada find a role alongside the United States to help restore law and order to help create a democratic Iraq , so richly-deserved by Iraqis after such prolonged and miserable existence under lengthy dictatorships. This could be exemplary to the peaceful co-existence of Israeli and Palestinian states.

Europe is already on side for playing an active role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue, so is Russia . The world awaits the sole superpower -- the United States -- to act and act swiftly. For as British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states only then there will be lasting peace and stability in the Middle East .

May 12th, 2003

NMD suddenly lands with a giant thud

OTTAWA --The National Missile Defence (NMD) system has suddenly descended on the Canadian political scene raising more questions and concerns than providing answers. Both the Cabinet and Liberal caucus have recently been seized with discussions on this U.S.-proposed military program.

For months, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien refused to respond to persistent questioning about Canada 's participation in the NMD system, insisting such inquiries were hypothetical since the United States had not asked Canada to participate in any discussions on the development of such a system. So, what has changed? Has the United States now formally asked for Canada to participate? Last week, the Prime Minister did not give a clear answer to this question in the House.

Canadian officials from the departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and National Defence have been meeting their counterparts in Washington , D.C. , but no formal announcement has been forthcoming on the NMD.

So, what factors have prompted this sudden surge of interest in discussing the National Missile Defence proposal? For one, Liberal leadership contender and frontrunner Paul Martin a fortnight ago on CTV Question Period expressed his support for a North American missile defence system. His position was immediately endorsed, not only by Defence Minister John McCallum, already an NMDer, but also by Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham, who until now has been reluctant to come out wholeheartedly in support of development and deployment of such a weapons system.

While Canadian Parliamentarians are engaged in discussing when and if the United States has asked for Canada 's participation, the development of such a system is assumed to be already underway. President George Bush gave the go-ahead for such a missile defence system on Dec. 17, 2002, when he said: "I have directed the Secretary of Defence to proceed with fielding an initial set of missile defence capabilities. We plan to begin operating these initial capabilities in 2004 and 2005, and they will include ground-based interceptors, sea-based interceptors, additional Patriot (PAC-3) units, and sensors based on land, at sea, and in space."

In the same statement, President Bush also announced his intention to seek agreement from the United Kingdom and Denmark to upgrade early-warning radars on their territory. However, no mention was made of Canada . The U.S. President was probably presuming that Canada will be a willing partner, given the 50-year history of partnership in NORAD -- the North American Aerospace Defence Agreement, a Canada-U.S. bilateral agreement which served well as an early-warning system during the Cold War.

The NMD is meant to be a more sophisticated defence system than the current early warning NORAD. President Bush has said the development of the missile defence system is part of his commitment "to transform America 's national security strategic defence capabilities to meet the threats of the 21st century." He is pledging to protect U.S. citizens against "the gravest danger of all: the catastrophic harm that may result from hostile states or terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them."

The naysayers to NMD are questioning what countries today have the resources or even capabilities to launch sophisticated missiles in the direction of North America .

While the proposed NMD is touted as a "defence" system, some critics ask, how long will it be before it transforms into an offensive weapon?

And what amount of sovereignty is Canada willing to give up by participating in an exclusively U.S.-run NMD system? Will Canada have a say in its development and delivery decisions? If Canada participates, will it be perceived as an extension of the United States or will it be able to continue to play an independent role in world affairs? What economic benefits will accrue to Canadian companies? Or will it be only a handful that will get a few contracts in the building of NMD system?

While President Bush talks about developing a security system suitable for the 21st Century, the Sept. 11 terrorist attackers carried crude but lethal box-cutters. Is it then worth spending billions of dollars on developing sophisticated weapons when the enemy may be lurking amongst us? Or do we need to do a bit of both -- develop sophisticated defence systems as well as heavily finance security and intelligence services?

There is also concern about fool-proof deployment of NMD system. Former president Clinton just prior to the end of his term was hesitant and uncomfortable and ultimately not willing to give the go-ahead to the new and yet un-tested missile defence system. It failed 14 of the 17 experiments performed!

Will the development of this system lead to increased presence of weapons in space? Canada accepts the current use of space for navigation, mapping, arms control and verification purposes but is against weaponization of space. It has expressed strong concerns on this matter and with other countries is actively engaged in drafting an international treaty ensuring outer space remains as free as possible of weapons.

Canada has to decide whether to jump into the NMD sandbox. For once in there, it may not be easy to jump out without "consequences!"

May 5th, 2003

Bush's bent on resolving Israeli-Palestinian conflict

OTTAWA --The most recent roadmap for resolution of the Middle East conflict, presented on April 30, is yet another on the road already littered with peace proposals. As with previous such plans and agreements -- from Camp David I and II, the Madrid Conference, the Oslo Accord, the Crown Prince Abdullah plan, to name some, this one is also being initially heralded with much hope and fanfare and the usual dose of caution and cynicism.

The road map is the work of a Quartet -- the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia . In his June 24 speech U.S. President George Bush talked of a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by 2005. This initiative was welcomed by the E.U., Russia and the UN and led to the drawing up of the road map.

However, it faces many daunting challenges. The unfolding of the roadmap was marred by the killing of Israeli civilians in a suicide bomb attack and the killing of civilian Palestinians as a result of Israeli military incursion into Gaza . The Palestinian Authority (PA) Minister Nabil Shaath said the PA "accepted the roadmap in total -- without conditions." Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in an interview in Israeli newspaper Haaretz expressed reservations about the roadmap on security, implementation of stages and the right of return sought by Palestinians. Despite these reservations, Prime Minister Sharon has indicated his government's willingness to make "painful concessions" to ensure the success of the roadmap. The U.S. Presidential election in the 2004 also does not augur well for the success of this initiative, which will require tremendous political and diplomatic skills and resources to see it to its final destination.

The roadmap will succeed only if it has the personal support of President Bush. Following a successful operation in Iraq in dismissing Saddam Hussein, President Bush seems bent on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which fuels much resentment of the United States in the region. British Prime Minister and French President Jacques Chirac have also been instrumental to having the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolved.

There is also optimism because Israeli and American officials will be able to engage in dialogue with the newly-installed Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Abu Mazan. Senior U.S. and Israeli officials have refused to meet with Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat. While Prime Minister Abu Mazen conducts negotiations on the roadmap for Middle East peace, Arafat remains on the side-lines as the symbol of Palestinian struggle.

Canada, which has a long history of involvement in the Middle East, dating back to awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to then secretary of state for External Affairs Lester B. Pearson for his efforts in averting the Suez crisis and later providing peacekeepers and monitors in Sinai, and the Golan Heights, can play an equally important role to help implement the present road map.

The first phase of the roadmap calls for ending terror and violence, normalizing Palestinian life and building Palestinian institutions. The Palestinians are to "immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence," and Israel is to withdraw from "Palestinian areas occupied from Sept. 28, 2000 and the two sides are to restore the status quo that existed at that time. Israel is to freeze all settlement activity.

The Arab states are to cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror. All donors providing budgetary support for the Palestinians channel these funds through the Palestinian Ministry of Finance's Single Treasury Account. Steps are to be taken to draft a constitution for Palestinian statehood, an independent election commission. These are areas in which Canada could be of assistance but the initial official response from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade makes to the roadmap makes no mention of any Canadian contribution.

The second phase of the roadmap, June, 2003 -- December 2003, starts after Palestinian elections and ends with possible creation of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders in 2003. An international conference is envisaged during this period to support Palestinian economic recovery and seek a comprehensive Middle East peace, including between Israel and Syria , and Israel and Lebanon . Arab states are to restore pre-intifada links to Israel (trade offices, etc.).

The objectives of the third and final phase are consolidation of reform and stabilization of Palestinian institutions, sustained, effective Palestinian security performance, and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at permanent status agreement in 2005.

A second international conference is envisaged where parties reach final and comprehensive permanent status agreement that ends Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2005, ends the occupation that began in 1967, and includes and agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue, and a negotiated resolution on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious concerns of both sides, and protects the religious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide, and fulfills the vision of two states, Israel and sovereign, independent, democratic and viable Palestine , living side-by-side in peace and security."

It is a tall order to be accomplished in a short time. Canada can help achieve it by offering resources, from drafting a constitution, establishing an election commission, to institution building, in order for the parties to the roadmap to reach their destination.

April 28th, 2003

Democracy in Africa

Much-needed nurturing of relations between Canada and the African continent

OTTAWA --Democracy is breaking out in Africa . The continent's most populous and once coup-ridden country Nigeria , with 120 million inhabitants, has re-elected President Obasanjo for a second term in the first presidential election to be run by civilians in 20 years. In December, 2002, Kenyans in free and fair elections ended President Daniel Arap Moi's 24-year rule by electing Mwai Kibaki. And, in Malawi , President Muluzi has been dissuaded from tampering with the Constitution to allow him to seek a third term. These are hopeful signs of an end to the preponderance of a prolonged era of one-party and military rule on the continent.

Canada , for its part, has made important contribution to the emergence of democracy on the continent. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's role in pushing the Africa envelope at last summer G-7 Summit at Kananaskis was no small step in this direction, where African leaders presented a plan for New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). Canada responded with a pledge to work with the African leaders and earmarked $500-million for various projects on the continent, among them promotion of good governance. Unless this money gets gobbled up by Canadian consultants, it should translate into some tangible results in establishing viable and sustainable democratic institutions.

This will require for Canada to stay engaged in development projects on the continent. International Cooperation Minister Susan Whelan during a visit last week to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) noted that Canadian assistance program has increased from 0.22 per cent of Gross National Income to 0.28 per cent of GNI. According to her, it is a 31.6 per cent increase in real terms from $2.37-billion in 2001 to $3.16-billion in 2002. While one commends the increase in aid budget one must also caution against forcing recipient countries to use a large chunk of this money to use Canadian consultants and procure Canadian goods, when these could be available at a cheaper price elsewhere. The level of such tied-aid, is estimated to be almost two-thirds of Canadian aid.

It is essential for Canada to pursue an independent foreign policy vis-à-vis Africa . Far too often it is tempting to piggy back on agendas of former colonial powers Belgium , Britain and France , when developing strategies for Africa . Canada will be well-advised to pursue policies, at times in concert with multilateral organizations, which project Canadian values. The insistence should be on eradicating poverty, promoting health and education, providing basic amenities, and assist in programs and institutions for guaranteeing human rights.

On matters of trade, there is a need for Canada to continue to set the example, as it has done with dropping all tariffs on certain goods from African countries, thereby providing the best engine for economic growth for industries in those countries. This is a welcome contrast to the European Union which provides subsidies to its farmers in the same amount as it sends in aid to developing countries. Would it not be better for the EU to end subsidizing its inefficient farmers and allow tariff-free importation of agricultural goods from developing countries?

On the political front, the era of protracted one-party rule is fast becoming history. Immediately after attaining independence in the 1960s and 70s, legendary figures such as Kenya's Kenyatta, Ghana's Nkrumah, Tunisia's Bourguiba, and Malawi's Banda, who had pioneered and directed movements against colonial occupation, were as a reward left to rule for lengthy periods of time. Zimbabwe 's Robert Mugabe, in the initial years also benefited from his legendary past as a leader of the liberation struggle against minority White rule in what was then called Rhodesia .

While coups often reflected the sorry reality of affairs on the African continent for decade after independence, there have subsequently been cases of leaders who have voluntarily stepped down to allow for successors to be chosen in multiparty elections. Such has been the case with Nyerere in Tanzania , Senghor in Senegal , and more recently Mandela in South Africa .

In Africa's most populous country, Nigeria , with 120 million inhabitants, elections were held on April 12 for the 360-member lower House and 109-member Senate. As well, on April 19, elections took place for a president and 36 state governors and on May 3 Nigerians will go to polls to elect members to state assemblies. All this has been done in relative calm with only a handful of violent incidents reported in the presence of a horde of foreign observers. According to the Commonwealth observers team "In most of Nigeria a genuine and largely successful effort was made to enable the people to vote freely." There were reports of corruption and fraud but not as widespread as had been predicted.

The continent is not yet rid of serious problems as evidenced in recent clashes and killings in the Congo and Cote d'Ivoire . But, given the opportunity to free itself of ethnic rivalries, interference by former colonial powers and sale of weapons by aggressive arms merchants from developed economies, Africa could yet flourish.

The hope lies in small but significant actions such as the opening of a Canadian diplomatic mission in Maputo announced during Mozambique's President Chissano's recent state visit to Ottawa, are most welcome for the much-needed nurturing of relations between Canada and the African continent and be real partners in the development of the African continent.

April 21st, 2003

Iraq aftermath

Hope for democratization

OTTAWA --The Arab/Muslim world is disoriented, disheartened and disorganized in the wake of the United States‚ "shock and awe" campaign to "liberate" Iraq . This is reflected in the absence of an organized and unified Arab/Muslim response either prior to, or in the aftermath to the United States‚ Iraqi campaign.

Deep down the regimes in the Arab-Muslim world know fully well that the Iraqi people will now begin to enjoy the freedoms and a quality of life which they have not experienced in recent history -- neither under the monarchy nor under subsequent military regimes, which were often supported by the West.

There is no doubt that the American-led military campaign caused considerable civilian casualties, but many will now be able to live a liberated lifestyle unknown in many countries of the Arab world. The glitches of civil disorder resulting in looting will fade away as minor incidents which usually follow any political upheaval. The initial response in the form of street demonstrations in the Arab-Muslim world is often a covert protest against the regime in the respective Arab country, as much as against the presence of foreign forces in Iraq .

The impotence of the Arab world is reflected in the 22-member Arab League's failure to take any stand against President Saddam Hussein prior to the launch of the American-British campaign to unseat him. It strongly rebuffed United Arab Emirates‚ President Zayed's plea for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq for the sake of his people. The 57-member Organization of Islamic States also failed to respond to concerns about Saddam Hussein's regime. Many Arab and Muslim leaders looked in their own backyards reflecting on their record of governance and balked against any action. Basically, they could not justify any hostile action against another "brother" Arab leader, no matter how brutal his regime. Those already enjoying good relations with the West opted for continued good relations by providing logistic military support in the form of air and ground space, while those hostile to the West chose silence mainly for fear of raising questions about their own regime's somewhat less than stellar record of governance. In the end, the Arab-Muslim world, by default, presented the United States a carte blanche for action against the Saddam regime.

While there is optimism in the West about bringing democracy to the Middle East , there is apprehension and need for reflection in the Arab-Muslim world. Democracy is a nice sounding word for Western domestic political consumption but may not be easily digestible in the region proliferated by for-life regimes. The Egyptian human rights activist Saad Eddin Ibhrahim rightly described the American attempt at political re-engineering of the Middle East as "naïve and arrogant," in an interview with Globe and Mail's Cairo correspondent Paul Adams.

Will the United States desire for political and social re-engineering of the region succeed? It depends if suspicion and apprehension can be erased by presentation of a forthright plan of action. The history of subjugation of the region by the British, French and earlier on by the Ottomans invokes suspicions of desire for control of the economic riches of the region with little or no regard for the welfare of the citizens. The American presence, however, offers a hope for democratization of the region in every sense of the word and Iraq can be made an example of it.

There is also legitimate concern on the part of some of the regimes in the region for a rush to bring democracy to the region. Could it lead to a similar experience as in Algeria where Islamic fundamentalists were stopped by Western powers just when they were about to gain control of government? Governments in Pakistan , Jordan , Egypt , Kuwait and Malaysia , to name some of the countries, battling political parties from assuming control of governments through democratic process in order to establish Islamic-based regimes. These religious parties fuel anti-Western sentiment to gain support in the cause of Islam. The immediate convergence of far-right, born-again Christian fundamentalists on Iraq , so soon after military action, raises concerns about sincerity of implanting democracy over spreading Christianity. It immediately invokes memories of the Christian-Muslim crusades.

The United States has won the military action in Iraq . It must now win the minds and hearts of the people, which will be a far more prolonged affair. However, given the goodwill of the American people, this is not an insurmountable task. But it can only be accomplished with an abundance of political goodwill and long-term commitment on the part of the United States .

The United States will be well-advised to call on the United Nations to help in the humanitarian task and restoration of civil order. It can afford to ignore the non-governmental aid agencies, which often tend to pick "disaster of the month" for fundraising purposes. Instead of hopping to cope with one humanitarian crisis to another, one would think these NGO humanitarian agencies would have their hands full in Afghanistan and Rwanda , to name just two areas of the world in dire need of their assistance.

There is no doubt that given sufficient goodwill, and the availability of resources, the recent American action in Iraq will spark the kind of renaissance which the Baath (meaning renaissance) Party failed to deliver not only in the country, but the region. One would want to trust the Americans to finish the job!

April 14th, 2003

Iraqi chargé d'affaires may apply for refugee status

Mamdouh Mustafa lives in Rockliffe with his wife and two children

OTTAWA --The lone Iraqi diplomat in Ottawa , who was in police protection last week, is also out of a job. With the collapse of President Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, he has no government to represent as he and his wife sit with their two young children in Ottawa's tony Rockcliffe Park suburb contemplating their future.

Last Thursday, Momdouh Mustafa was whisked away from the Iraqui Embassy under police protection, this after a pro-democracy group had arrived at the embassy to request the Iraqi Embassy be vacated.

What are his options? The option to go back home is the least likely he will pursue for fear or retribution from those who may know him and of his links to the repressive Saddam regime. Unlike diplomats from democratic governments, those from now defunct Communist and apartheid regimes were not your balanced bureaucrats, but were members and staunch defenders of the sole ruling party and harboured strong ideological attachments to the respective regimes back home.

When the Berlin Wall crumbled, the resulting reunified Germany absorbed only a couple of former East German diplomats. Many of the other East European and former Soviet satellite countries lacking skilled and experienced diplomats were forced to absorb large numbers of former Communists for the sake of necessity.

It was a similar case in South Africa , which in the pursuit of racial reconciliation, tolerated former arch apartheid defenders and promoters to linger on in their foreign service. The case in point is the current South African High Commissioner André Jacquet. The Swiss-born Jacquet served as the white minority apartheid regime's top defender and promoter during his posting as consul in Montreal in the 1980s. He is one of the few who opted to take advantage of the reconciliation policy allowing him to linger on long enough to cash into a lucrative retirement scheme.

However, unlike the South African diplomat, the Ottawa-based Iraqi diplomat, Momdouh Mustafa, will not be offered any comfort of a job after having served in the much-despised Saddam regime. The consensus among his Arab colleagues is that the soft-spoken Iraqi diplomat, seemingly in his late 40s, will most likely opt for refuge in Canada . Whether as a result of deliberate calculation or as a result of a recent work overload, the Iraqi envoy of late refused all media interviews. He, however, made regular appearances on the diplomatic circuit, including attending the Governor General's party for the diplomatic corps in February of this year. He was also a regular at the Arab ambassadors' monthly meetings.

The Rockcliffe Park Iraqi official residence was the scene of annual birthday bashes for the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. A few years ago, guests were treated to a massive cake decked with wishes for a happy and long life for the Iraqi leader. There was reciting of poetry and singing of praises of the "beloved" Saddam.

Mr. Mustafa, who has a perfect command of English, was never the ranting and raving defender of the Saddam regime -- at least not on the diplomatic circuit. Even during the recent most difficult time for the regime, Mr. Mustafa, while not shirking away from representing his country did not become an apologist for the regime. He did, however, relish the news of President Saddam -- the sole candidate winning 100 per cent of the vote in last December's presidential election.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Agency (CSIS) will have to provide credible evidence for or against Mr. Mustafa, in case he applies for refugee status in Canada . It depends on what CSIS can dig up, or already knows about his background and affiliation to Iraq 's ruling Baath Party. There may also be information Iraqi émigrés can provide for or against Mr. Mustafa.

In a similar scenario, diplomats in the foreign service of the Shah of Iran suddenly found themselves without livelihood, when he was overthrown by the student-inspired revolution which brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. Most of the Iranian diplomats were offered asylum in the countries in which they were serving at the time of the revolution and some later relocated to countries of their choice, if they were acceptable.

The Canadian Alliance MPs recently urged Canada to expel the Iraqi diplomat following a reported request from the U.S. State Department to about 60 countries with diplomatic ties to Iraq . Many of these countries refused, including, Switzerland , Mexico , Malaysia and Egypt . Hungary expelled two but allowed another two, including the charge d'affaires to stay. Canada expelled an Iraqi diplomat last December for activities unbecoming of diplomatic functions -- probably engaging in espionage, but chose to keep the embassy open.

The case of Mr. Mustafa, however, will not be the first time that Canada has been faced with having to make difficult decision about an Iraqi diplomat. In 1991, the Mulroney government secretly gave asylum to Iraq 's Ambassador to the UN Mr. Al-Mashat. Al-Mashat, who is rumored to reside in Vancouver , had befriended Canada 's Ambassador to Washington D.C. Allan Gotleib, who played an important role in the Iraqi's diplomatic defection to Canada . In 1993, it is understood Iraq 's last Ambassador to Canada Hisham Al Shawi sought asylum in Canada but was refused. The Oxford educated Ambassador then absconded with embassy funds totaling some $200,000 to join an Iraqi opposition group in London , England . He handed over the embassy funds to opposition groups fighting for the removal of Saddam Hussein.

It is uncertain what fate awaits the current Iraqi diplomat in Ottawa . But one thing is certain. Mr. Mustafa has no country to represent and is likely looking for a new job.

April 7th, 2003

Canada 's principled foreign policy

OTTAWA --Just when U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci is talking of continuing to work together to build "strong and long-term" relations between Canada and the United States , the Canadian Alliance introduces a motion asking the House, among other things to "apologize" to the United States for inappropriate and untimely remarks by some Canadian MPs. If passed, such a motion will place Canadian foreign policy in a straight jacket and subservient to the United States . And what kind of a message does it send to other small and mediums-size countries existing next to larger ones? Should they all follow the dictums of their larger neighbours? And what happened to the concept that every country is sovereign and free to express its views and follow independent policies so long as they do not harm another country or disrupt world order? Perhaps, the Canadian Alliance is more interested in political expediency by reflecting the opinion of its rump Alberta-based American origin support, than respect international mores.

The sole focus of the Canadian Alliance is this country's economic relations with the United States . But they seem to forget that bilateral relations are based on more than just trade. They overlook Ambassador Cellucci's remarks when discussing Canada-U.S. relations, in Montreal last week: "We are friends. We are allies. We are neighbours -- and we are family. And nothing is ever going to change that."

President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Thomas Donohue when asked during the visit to Toronto last Thursday whether trade between Canada and the United States will suffer because of the recent verbal tiffs, he replied there will be "no backlash, absolutely not." He added, "We are disappointed but understand," Canada 's position. This reflects the mature state of Canada-U.S. bilateral relations.

Canada and the United States enjoy an interdependent economy. The U.S. relies on Canada as the largest single reliable source of energy supply. Canada is the largest destination for 25 per cent of U.S. exports and destination for exports from 38 of the 50 states. In return, two-thirds of Canadian exports go to the United States making it the largest single trading relationship in the world. And, it is mutually beneficial.

For the most part, businesses do not sell or buy because they like the politics of another country. Even during the worst years of the Cold War and immediately following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan , the Reagan administration exempted sale of wheat to the Soviet Union , what it then termed the "evil empire." It opted to feed the "enemy" than see wheat sales plummet in the Republican Midwest stronghold prior to an election.

Communist China and capitalist Taiwan are each other's largest trade partners despite constant threats by China to invade Taiwan . Furthermore, Taiwan is the largest investor in mainland China . The two keep on trading, while sharing many cultural values but having diametrically opposed political philosophies.

Closer to home, Mexico's percentage of trade with the United States is almost as much as Canada, yet it did not support the pre Iraq war British-U.S. proposed resolution at the United Nations Security Council. Mexican business executives were encouraging their government to endorse this resolution, but the government of President Vincente Fox resisted the pressure. Does this action make Mexico anti-American? Despite all the fear-mongering of potential trade problems, President Fox's government enjoys support of almost two-third of Mexicans, almost the same as in Canada on the Iraq question. One does not appease one's neighbour for merely economic considerations. Mexico 's 1917 Constitution bars it from sending troops outside its borders. But the fact that Mexico is not contributing in any way to the attack on Iraq does not make it anti-American.

In another recent example, President Ricardo Lagos of Chile put it bluntly when told his country's opposition to British-U.S. resolution at the UN Security Council could scuttle the recently signed Chile-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The Chilean President replied, "The Free Trade Agreement is not a gift that the United States is giving to Chile , neither it is a gift from Chile to the United States . The Agreement was signed because it was beneficial for both countries to expedite trade between them." Does any one really seriously think that the U.S. would have dropped the massive 29 per cent duty of softwood lumber if Canada had joined the war on Iraq ?

What will the Alliance ask Canada to do next to appease the United States ? Sever relations with Cuba , Iran and Libya ? Would the Canadian Alliance want to see Canada perceived as an appendage to the United States in its international dealings?

Canada has, and continues to pursue a principled foreign policy on the international scene. As a founding member of the Commonwealth and La Francophonie as well as the United Nations, and a country with no colonial past that carries no baggage of a superpower, it is respected on the world stage for following an independent foreign policy, while not jeopardizing its bilateral relations with its important ally -- the United States of America . Disputes often occur among family members and they can be equally easily resolved. Such is the nature of Canada-U.S. relations.

March 31st, 2003

International diplomacy is a two-edged sword

U.S. would not now want to push its two friendly neighbours too far

Following his speech to the Toronto Economic Club last week, U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci engaged in some unusual diplomatic activity. Usually, as guests in another countries, diplomats do not comment on the domestic affairs of the host country. Recently, when Lebanon 's Ambassador Raymond Baaklini made remarks about media ownership in this country, the same Canadian Alliance MPs who are now cheering Ambassador Cellucci's remarks urged Canada to expel the Lebanese envoy.

It is no secret that American ambassadors have been known to make calculated public remarks to swing presidential elections in favour of their pet candidates, usually in developing countries. While some MPs cheered the American Ambassador's criticism of Liberal MPs' remarks about U.S. President George Bush, others, like Toronto MP Jim Karygiannis reminded, "Mr. Cellucci does not get elected in Canada . We are the ones that express our views for our constituents."

Ambassador Cellucci's speech was a fair and balanced assessment of Canada-U.S. relations. Unfortunately, it got sidelined by his remarks to the media following the speech, in which he questioned the Prime Minister's judgment not to admonish Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal for saying President Bush is "not a statesman." In reaction, the American envoy had earlier withdrawn his lunch invitation to Minister Dhaliwal.

In his speech, Ambassador Cellucci spoke of "no relationship that we have in the world that is more important than our relationship with Canada ." He cited the $1.4-billion-a-day trade between the two countries, that for 38 of the 50 states the number one foreign trading partner is Canada, 200 million border crossings a year, cooperation in defence of North America through partnership in Northcom (formerly NORAD), among other examples.

He also drew attention to the fact that "the U.S. gets more energy from Canada than any other foreign country and this ability to have reliable sources of energy and a reliable transmission of energy here in North America is critical for both of us and for Mexico as we want to keep our economies growing." The American envoy quoted Prime Minister Chrétien's statement of Sept. 14, 2001, when he said, "We are not only great friends and great allies, we are family."

Being a family, Prime Minister Chrétien has often observed, means we can often disagree and agree to see things from different perspectives and act accordingly in our national interest. In a similar vein, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Antonio O. Graza speaking in Puebla weeks before the crucial UN Security Council vote said, "We are not asking Mexico to do the United States a favour. We expect Mexico to act according to its own interests and its responsibilities to the international community..." To which Mexico 's Secretary of Government, Santiago Creel replied, " Mexico 's position will respond exclusively to our interests, those of Mexicans and no one else." Ultimately, Mexico refrained from supporting the U.S.-British sponsored resolution at the UN Security Council.

In Toronto , Ambassador Cellucci cited a number of recent examples of cooperation between Canada and the U.S. including, the Smart and Secure Border agreement, "safe third" country agreement, Yukon-Salmon Agreement, and "outstanding" cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies of the two countries.

He even added, "Ironically, the Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel in the Persian Gulf who are fighting terrorism will provide more support indirectly to this war in Iraq than most of the 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there."

Yes, Ambassador Cellucci, did have a sentence or two in his speech decrying lack of support from Canada in the war in Iraq , saying, "So we are disappointed that some of our closest allies, including Canada have not agreed with us on the urgent need for this military action against Iraq ."

But, U.S. intentions and actions in Iraq are being questioned in Washington, D.C. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the Dean of the U.S. Congress, in a speech in the Senate on March 11 said, "Instead of forging an international coalition to deal with Iraq, as it set out to do, the Administration has managed to turn much world opinion against United States...I believe this coming war is a grave mistake, not because Saddam Hussein does not deserve to be disarmed or driven from power, not because some of our allies object to war, but because Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the security of the United States. ...In many corners of the world, the United States is seen as manufacturing a crisis in Iraq, not responding to one."

The evidence is in the fact that, of the 191-member countries of the United Nations, only two -- Britain and Australia, are contributing personnel and material to U.S. war efforts in Iraq; only two of the 15 members of the UN Security Council -- Bulgaria and Spain, backed the failed British/U.S. sponsored resolution for war against Iraq; and only two -- Britain and Australia, of the 54 Commonwealth countries are materially supporting the U.S. in Iraq.

International diplomacy is a two-edged sword. The U.S. would not now want to push its two friendly neighbours, reliable economic partners, and allies in war on terrorism -- Canada and Mexico , into Cubas at its doorsteps through harsh retaliatory measures.

March 24th, 2003

Canada 's stand is not anti-American

Iraq war has fermented some uncomfortable upheavals on international scene

OTTAWA -- Canada did well to stay the UN course on Iraq . This was endorsed by a 153-50 vote in the House of Commons last Thursday on a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government "not to participate in the military intervention initiated by the United States in Iraq ." The vote is the reflection of Canadian public opinion.

The decision to pursue the United Nations-endorsed course of action should not be perceived as anti-American. The two are mutually exclusive. If the UN course of action is anti-American then, by that logic, the majority of the 191 countries of the world can be perceived to be anti-American. Only two countries -- Britain and Australia , are providing military personnel support to the U.S. attack on Iraq . Even Spain , which stood by the U.S. in the UN Security Council, is not providing any military support. And Portugal , which provided the venue for the Azores Summit a week ago, is also a bystander in the U.S. war effort.

The Iraqi issue has fermented some uncomfortable upheavals on the international scene. Britain and France have exchanged some unkind words over course of action against Iraq . However, Canadian and U.S. leaders have respectfully, at least publicly, accepted the other's decision.

The United States deserve credit for its military build-up which finally pushed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to start respecting some 16 Security Council resolutions languishing over 12 years, requiring Iraq to disarm. Unfortunately, the United States abandoned the UN course of action over the dispute of timing of action against Iraq . The U.S. military action against Iraq started on March 17. The Canadian proposal seeking to bridge the divide among the Security Council members had proposed giving Iraq until March 28 or the latest until April 8, 2003, to disarm. If this proposal had been given a chance, there is every likelihood that the U.S. action against Iraq could have mustered support from a much larger number of countries, including Canada , than it now has.

The United States failed to make the case for immediate attack on Iraq to the world body. The United Nations, often referred to as the court of world opinion, was not convinced by the U.S. and a British argument for immediate military action against Iraq but was moving in that direction fairly swiftly. The UN, with the help of the United States , was finally going to call Iraq 's bluff. But the world opinion would have preferred a more realistic deadline of a week or two than President Bush's 48-hour ultimatum.

In the course of a few weeks of U.S. pressure, the Iraqis destroyed 72 of the 122 Al Samoud 2 missiles under the watchful eye of the UN weapons inspectors. The process of disarming Iraq was getting on track but Iraqi intransigence persisted. This, no doubt, prominently figured into the U.S. and British decision to take military action.

The United Nations played a credible and useful role in summoning world opinion against Iraq a dozen years ago when it invaded neighboring Kuwait . The United States was able to work through this world body to line up 28 of the most powerful and diverse countries to drive Iraq out of Kuwait . The coalition put together by President Bush Sr. had support of all permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as Arab and Muslim countries. That such a coalition could not be put together, perhaps because of a rush to military action, does not speak well of a new world order based on "rule of law" to regulate world affairs. In the case of liberation of Kuwait , use of course coupled with a moral argument, had set the tone for world diplomacy. It remains to be seen what kind of world order emerges from the current Iraqi crisis.

There is no doubt that Europe's future will be shaped by recent public tiffs and policy differences between France and Germany on the one hand and Britain on the other. Just as the European Union expands from 15 to 25 members, it is busy reviewing not only the state of intra-Europe relations, but also more importantly, reviewing the state of trans-Atlantic relations.

Similarly, in this hemisphere, it remains to be seen what kind of relations the U.S. pursues with Mexico and Chile . These two members of the Security Council withheld their support for the proposed British-U.S. resolution which was never put to the Security Council for lack of support. Whatever, if any, cooling of relations may take place among countries of this hemisphere, trade, especially among NAFTA partners, will continue to flow. Because, for the most part, decisions to trade is based more on reality of cold financial calculations, market forces and availability of supplies, than political considerations. In this respect, the mutuality and reliability of business relations among the NAFTA partners is not likely to be affected. For example, one cannot envisage the U.S. seeking alternative secure sources of energy than it already has in Canada and Mexico .

The United Nations, which is playing a useful coordinating role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan , will most likely be called on to do the same in Iraq . Hence, despite its shortcomings, the UN will continue to play an important role in world affairs.

March 17th, 2003

UN will survive current Iraqi crisis

Other than doomsday prophets, world leaders are keeping UN in perspective

OTTAWA --The United Nations will survive the current Iraqi crisis. This is a minor challenge compared to what the world body encountered during the protracted Cold War.

U.S. President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair started the mantra that the UN will become irrelevant if it does not back an attack on Iraq . In Canada , Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper mimicked the same when he told the House of Commons on Jan. 29: "The failure to enforce resolutions to disarm Hussein will mean the UN itself will cease to be a credible body in world security affairs."

Fortunately, other than a handful of these doomsday prophets on the future of the UN, the majority of world leaders are keeping the deliberations at the United Nations in perspective.

The UN has faced numerous challenges, ranging from such serious ones as the Suez crisis to the 1950s conflict on the Korean peninsula and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian problem, to resolving outstanding issues of status of Kashmir and Cyprus . Other than resolving conflicts and stemming others from flaring into full-blown wars, the UN's achievements include managing de-colonization and meeting social and economic needs of the world community through its various organs. The Permanent Court of Internationals Justice created by the UN has settled many disputes between countries and the creation last week of the International Criminal Court, with a Canadian at the head, is another landmark in the organization's history.

It seems that Britain and the United States miscalculated the reaction to their proposals to the Security Council on Iraq , expecting smaller, non-permanent member-states of the Security Council to fall in place and endorse them. Furthermore, the major resistance to the British and American stance has emanated from permanent members of the Security Council such as France and Russia , and traditional allies such as Germany , as well as friendly neighbour Mexico , and hemispheric ally Chile . Even Pakistan balked at voting automatically for the British proposals, as did three African countries of Angola , Cameroon and Guinea , the last of whom holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council this month. There is widespread opposition at the Security Council to the British-American proposals from across geographic and political lines.

Having realized the seriousness of the situation, the French Foreign Minister, a British junior minister, and US Under Secretary of State for African Affairs hurriedly embarked on short safaris to the three African nations to get their support. It was only a short few years ago, when Condoleeza Rice, on her appointment as National Security Advisor, was invited to a luncheon by the Washington-based African diplomatic corps and she declined. Diplomacy is a slow and winding road and one does not just come calling only when in despair.

The UN is a democratic institution reflecting world opinion. Just as each province enjoys equality in the Canadian confederation so do sovereign nations in the United Nations. They each have the same one vote as any other country in the world body, irrespective of size, wealth and power. Article 2 of the Charter of the UN states "The Organizations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members." Having said that, there is the "victors" council - the Security Council, made up of the victorious out of the Second World War - Britain , China , France, Russia and the United States of America . These five countries exercise considerable influence and enjoy the status of being permanent members of the Security Council. The Council acts as the executive body for the 191-member General Assembly of the United Nations. Each year 10 non-permanent members are elected to the Security Council based on geographic consideration. Therefore, one could not find a more representative body of world opinion than the United Nations created in 1945 in San Francisco with the primary objective of preservation of international peace and security.

Another familiar stance adopted by the Canadian Alliance in attacking the Canadian government for not supporting the U.S. in pre-emptive deployment of troops in the Middle East , is that such non-action will hurt Canada-US trade relations. Interestingly Chile 's President Ricardo Lagos, whose country recently signed a free trade agreement FTA) with the U.S. told a press conference that the FTA is not threatened by an eventual negative vote of Chile at the Security Council. He added, "The Free Trade Agreement is not a gift that the United States is giving to Chile , neither it is a gift from Chile to the United States . The Agreement was signed because it was beneficial for both countries to expedite trade between them."

If the UN is in the midst of being declared irrelevant, then perhaps much more like-minded organizations close in values to Britain and the U.S. , such as NATO and European Union than the diverse UN, should also be placed under the same banner. For they too are splintered on whether to support the British-American plans for an attack on Iraq .

Canada deserves credit for staying the UN track and in the process making useful a contribution such as the compromise 'Plan to Bridge the Divide' at the Security Council.

As is often said, if the United Nations did not exist, we would have to invent it.

March 10th, 2003

Canada 's respectable compromise

OTTAWA --While some decried Canada 's policy on the Iraq crisis as fence-sitting, it is ultimately being viewed as seeking a respectable compromise. The Canadian proposal currently circulating at the United Nations, especially among Security Council members, is asking the world community to consider imposing a March 28 deadline for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to completely disarm or face the consequences.

The Canadian initiative is a compromise between two positions. One is the British proposal, backed by the United States calling for immediate action against Iraq for not complying with the earlier UN Security Council resolution of November, 2002. The other, the French proposal, backed by UN Security Council permanent members Russia and China , as well as by non-permanent member Germany , calls for allowing an extended period of time of five to six months and a dramatic increase, from 100 to 1,000 weapons inspectors to comb Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, before taking any action. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council have the right to veto any proposal and France and Russia have threatened such action if the British-sponsored resolution calling for immediate action against Iraq is presented.

Initially rejected out of hand by the United States and French-backed group, the Canadian proposal is appealing to more and more members of the Security Council, including favourable comment by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien for his part took the idea to Mexico , a non-permanent member of the Security Council and received favourable response. The other non-permanent member Chile also weighed in on Canada 's side and has been promoting the proposal among other Security Council members.

The Canadian proposal titled "Ideas on bridging the divide" states, "Both sides have a point: an open-ended inspection process would relieve the pressure on the Iraqis to disarm; a truncated inspection process would leave doubt that war was a last resort." It says the focus should be put back on disarmament, "on substance not on process, e.g. the disposition of the VX gas and precursors, etc." The Canadian proposal, however, leaves no doubt that if the proposed March 28 report indicates that the Iraqis have not complied, "all necessary means could be used to force them to disarm."

While the British have mellowed somewhat to give the Canadian proposal a favourable look over, the rhetoric in Washington , D.C. , is for immediate military action against Iraq . The United States' stance that it is ready to attack Iraq with or without the UN Security Council approval, and constantly putting the relevance of the world body into question leads one to ask: if the UN was good enough when it unanimously (15-0) passed resolution 1441 in November 2002, why is it not good enough now? It is non-compliance of the Iraqi regime with resolution 1441 that the United States and Britain are citing as justifying an attack on Iraq , among, of course many previous UN resolutions.

By the same token, will the United States question the relevance of NATO because some of its members also withheld supporting for certain U.S.-backed positions on Iraq, including providing protection to fellow NATO member Turkey, in the event of an attack on Iraq. Furthermore, the challenge at the UN to the United States ' position is mounted by none other than France, an ally and fellow NATO member.

If there is disagreement at the UN Security Council and NATO, similar logjams existed at the recent meetings of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). The fact that both organizations could not even come up with unanimous resolutions on the situation in Iraq does not make them irrelevant. Similarly, it would be preposterous to state that the vote in the British House of Commons by 122 Labour Party MPs against their own government's policy on Iraq has somehow placed the future of that institution in a predicament.

The challenge for any superpower is whether to take the more difficult route of multilateralism or the easy way of unilateralism.

Countries such as Canada are placing their faith in the multilateral system to resolve issues of war and trade. Living next to a disproportionate neighbor favoring unilateralism is not an easy choice. However, as Prime Minister Chrétien recently told the audience in Chicago : " Canada has its own international policy. Canada must follow its own approach. Our approach is to support multilateral institutions. We will continue on that path."

If there is to be a rule-based international system, then there exists the need for forums such as the United Nations and World Trade Organization, for resolving challenging issues. How else are conflicts or disputes to be resolved?

The Canadian proposal to the UN Security Council is one small yet significant step to maintain multilateral avenues open.

One hopes that opposition parties in the House will now recognize that seeking compromise is not tantamount to sitting on the fence.

For Canada , which is not even on the Security Council, to have managed to capture the international community's attention with its proposal to resolving the Iraqi impasse is no small feat. It is a triumph, limited as it may be, in Canadian foreign policy history.

March 3rd, 2003

So, Saddam has to go

For the sake of his people

OTTAWA -- Iraq 's President Saddam Hussein has to go! He has to go for the sake of the people of Iraq . They have endured far too much suffering for far too long. His departure will not only end the Iraqi people's daily suffering but bring back economic buoyancy, which should be the state of affairs in Iraq -- the only country in the region blessed with both oil and water as well as a skilled and educated populace.

Some will, of course, question what happened to the concept of state sovereignty -- a concept which guarantees the right of a country to conduct its affairs without interference from outside forces. There are two superseding factors to state sovereignty: one, when a state becomes a threat to peace, stability and world order, and second when it acts towards its citizens in a manner which is cause for concern for its neighbours. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has made his country vulnerable on both counts. While "regime change" is a recent coinage its vintage is old. U.S. administrations installed the deposed Iranian dynasty, deposed and installed a friendly leader in South Vietnam , invaded and ended Prime Minister Bishop's rule in Grenada and penetrated Panama to pluck the famous pineapple-faced President Noriega, who still sits in a U.S. jail. So, regime change is nothing new.

In Saddam's case, his invasion of a fellow Arab and Muslim country, Kuwait , almost a decade ago, the launch earlier of hostilities against fellow Muslim country Iran , and his refusal to release some 650, mostly Kuwaiti, prisoners of war, is an affront to international civilized behaviour.

In the case of treatment of his own people, Saddam Hussein has created a fear-filled and repressive state with no room for dissent and a rubber-stamp national assembly. While it is likely to be a daunting task, U.S. President Bush is right in setting sights on creating democratic states in the region, starting with Iraq . Unfortunately, the record does not bode well for these bold ventures. For instance, almost a decade after wanting to restore full democracy in a liberated Kuwait, the women in that country still do not enjoy the basic fundamental right to vote. But Kuwait is miles ahead of other countries in the region in democratic development by having an elected and functioning national assembly.

When oppressed people in an oppressive country cannot rise up or speak without risking their lives, as was the case in apartheid South Africa , others outside have to do so on their behalf. The suffering of the Iraqi people receives much publicity, as a result of regular visits by foreign delegations, showing lack of equipment and medicines in hospitals and clinics because of UN-imposed sanctions. A unanimous motion of the House of Commons Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Affairs, under then-chair Bill Graham, now Foreign Affairs Minister, called for an end to these sanctions. However, while TV images of suffering children make a compelling case for ending sanctions against Iraq , there is little or no question of the billions squandered by President Saddam Hussein on building palaces for his comfort and that of the ruling elite.

Little is known about a United Nations program to allow Iraq to sell oil in exchange for essential supplies. For instance, Iraqi oil revenues for the week ending Feb. 7 totalled $320-million based on the export of 11.8 billion barrels, according to the United Nations office overseeing this humanitarian "oil-for-food" program.

The UN Security Council established the oil-for-food program in April, 1995. Since December 1996, some 3.3 billion barrels of Iraqi oil valued at about $62-billion have been exported under the program, including to the United States to this day. Of this amount, 72 per cent of the total has been allocated to humanitarian needs nationwide since December, 2000. The balance is distributed to a Compensation Fund for Persian Gulf War reparations, which receives 25 per cent, while 2.2 per cent covers UN administrative and operational costs of the program, with the remaining 0.8 per cent going towards costs for the weapons inspection program. Is it any wonder that the Iraqi people are tired of the regime, which mismanages revenues from this program by spending on building lavish palaces rather than buying needed supplies. It prefers to use its people, especially under-nourished babies, as political fodder in TV images to garner sympathy for the president abroad than get its spending priorities in order.

So, Saddam has to go, not for the sake of the U.S. or Britain, or to ensure U.S. control of Iraq's oil reserves (known to be the world's largest) or to satisfy the suspected vendetta George W. Bush Jr. has against Saddam for trying to kill his father Bush Sr. No, none of the foregoing.

He has to go for the sake of his people.

February 17th, 2003

World order is shifting

OTTAWA --Is there a reconfiguration of alliances taking place on the world scene? Witness the recent, but previously unheard of, public disagreement among NATO military alliance members and continued disagreement among European Union (EU) member states on how to respond to the U.S.-proposed action against Iraq . The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are also realigning themselves to the U.S. action against Iraq .

Historically, one could count on Germany and the U.S. to be automatically on the same side in an Iraq-like crisis. But this is no longer the case. Needless to say, the sole superpower cannot take for granted, its former Cold War allies and its once adversaries such as Russia are linking forces with its once enemies like Germany .

The news, of not only a stalemate but of public disagreement, at the recent NATO ministers' meeting in Brussels, is perhaps a signal that the military alliance, created as a bulwark against Communism, needs to review its existence given the changing priorities. Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau questioned the need for Canada 's continued participation in NATO, as did former French president Charles de Gaulle. Perhaps time has come for Canada to undertake the review of its continued participation in NATO. The need to contain Communism allowed Turkey to become a member of NATO because of its strategic geographic location. But today, Turkey is having much difficulty being accepted as a European nation in the European Union.

NATO recently expanded from 19 member states to 26 with a special partnership agreement with Russia . But many of the new member states are seeking more of a psychological protection from a non-existent enemy, and wanting a foothold in Europe, in their desire to be considered as "Western Europeans" and not continued to be perceived as former Soviet satellite states on the fringes of Europe .

If NATO is facing internal dissension such as its disagreement on whether to provide protection and assistance to a member state, in this case Turkey , if the U.S. attacks Iraq , the EU is also facing some realignment. While there is history of antagonism between the British and the French, the recent rebuff by French President Jacques Chirac to British Prime Minister Tony Blair when he travelled across the channel to convince the French to join in war efforts against Iraq is seen not only as a sign of historic animosity but a reflection of ignorance of realignment on the part of the British. No sooner had Tony Blair left Paris after a cool reception that the French were warmly welcoming Russian President Vladimir Putin. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is also on side with the French on the war on Iraq .

Recently, British Prime Minister Blair was able to get signatures of eight European countries to show support for the U.S. stance against Iraq , but the omission of two major European powers - France and Germany , was an evident embarrassment. The division caused by Prime Minister Tony Blair's antics prompted EU President Romano Prodi to appeal to the European Union members to speak with one voice. However, the EU member states do not necessarily want to be seen espousing a monolith foreign policy. Thus, the European response to the U.S. appeal to deal with Iraq is not surprising.

The fractured and laggard European response to the U.S. is also likely the result of U.S. treatment of Europe, ranging from the U.S. ban on European steel imports to not ratifying Kyoto and hostility to an International Criminal Court, which the international community still managed to establish. Some of these U.S. actions have perhaps prompted Europeans to look after their own interests first, such as securing oil supplies prompting them to stay on the sidelines for as long as possible to dissuade the U.S. against taking any action in Iraq.

Some other international or regional organizations such as the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) are also proving to be ineffective in providing a unified stand on how to deal with Iraq or help find a solution, because the majority of its member Arab states are impotent against any U.S. action in Iraq and are themselves, in private, endorsing the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. In turn, Turkey has taken the initiative to hold regular ministerial level consultations, on the situation in Iraq , with such countries as Egypt , Iran , Jordan , Saudi Arabia and Syria .

As for North America, Canada, though geographically close to the United States and in NAFTA along with Mexico, is, however, finding its policies more in line with countries such as Chile, a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council and permanent members such as France and Russia.

As Prime Minister Chrétien last Thursday told the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations "it matters to your economy that ours does well: we consume 25 per cent of your exports." He added that in 2000, Canada bought more U.S. goods than all 15 countries of the EU combined. A timely reminder that usually it is a two-way traffic, benefiting both partners in an alliance.

It remains to be seen what kind of world order will evolve from the activities in each alliance in response to the U.S. proposed action against Iraq .

February 10th, 2003

U.S. needs UN to ensure safe, secure world

OTTAWA --The United States of America needs the United Nations as much as the world body needs the most powerful nation. This mutual reliance can ensure a safe and secure world.

For this reason, one credits top U.S. diplomat, Secretary of State Colin Powell, for engaging the UN by making a case before the world body before considering any unilateral military action against Iraq . This preferred course of action will not only garner goodwill from other member states of the United Nations but will help in finding solutions to impending difficult issues, such as the coming confrontation with North Korea and its decision to pursue a nuclear program. If it stays on the UN course, the U.S. can not only count on the moral authority of the UN but enlist its assistance to coordinate human and material resources to confront North Korea and perhaps solve the lingering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham told the House Foreign Affairs Committee last Thursday, the U.S. may be the most powerful country but it cannot solve all the world problems by itself. Former U.S. president Bill Clinton tried to go it alone and bombed Iraq in 1998, but not to much avail. After almost a decade of non-compliance by Iraq of UN resolutions the U.S. can help the world body finally have its resolutions implemented.

While one credits Secretary of State Powell for making his case before the United Nations, one questions British Prime Minister Tony Blair's antics in dashing across the channel to convince French President Jacques Chirac to make war declarations against Iraq, even before the U.S. presented evidence before the Security Council. Rightly, the French President rebuffed the British Prime Minister. Germany , the other major power, which currently holds the presidency of the Security Council, also urged awaiting the verdict of the UN weapons inspectors before taking any military decision.

After hearing Secretary Powell's evidence against Iraq , only three members of the UN Security Council Britain , Bulgaria and Spain , aligned themselves with the U.S. position. Others preferred to await the report to the Security Council on Friday, Feb. 14 by the UN chief weapons inspector Dr. Hans Blix. Canada has adopted this position also. Secretary Powell's attempt to link Iraq to international terrorism and activities of Al-Qaeda generated the greatest cynicism. There is also skepticism about credibility of imminent threat from Iraq .

In a constructive move, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin urged increasing the number of weapons inspectors and intensifying searches for Iraq 's weapons of mass destruction.

All political parties in the House of Commons, except the Canadian Alliance, have been urging working for a solution under the UN aegis and hearing from the UN weapons inspectors, before launching any action against Iraq . However, the trigger-happy Canadian Alliance is urging the government to start contributing to the pre-deployment U.S. force in the Middle East . Does the Canadian Alliance really think that Canada 's relations with the U.S. will improve dramatically if Canada unreservedly endorsed every U.S. military decision? Is the Canadian Alliance so naïve as to believe that Canada 's disputes with the U.S. , such as the softwood lumber, will be resolved overnight, if Canada joins the U.S. in attacks on Iraq ? One ought not to forget that Canada was not a partner with the U.S. in the Vietnam War.

While the Arab world remains impotent to bring to bear any significant influence on the U.S. decision on Iraq , the Turkish parliament has voted to support U.S. military action. Europe remains strategically divided, with only five of the European Union members siding with the United States , prompting EU President Romano Prodi to express concern about Europe 's lack of cohesiveness.

In a related matter, the House Foreign Affairs Committee last Thursday rejected Progressive Conservative MP Bill Casey's motion to have Iraqi and U.S. officials appear before the committee. At the urging of Foreign Affairs Minister Graham, the Liberal majority on the committee defeated the motion supported by all opposition parties. The Liberals argued that the appearance by Iraqi officials would give them a false sense of gaining legitimacy in world parliamentary forums when they are already making their case at the United Nations, but according to Mr. Casey the appearance would have allowed Canadian MPs to question them about missing chemicals, human rights record and genocide.

On Friday, Feb. 14, the world will hear the verdict of the UN weapons inspectors. The question is not if but when will the U.S. launch a swift strike against Iraq ?

February 3rd, 2003

Canada is right to stay the UN course

While the U.S. engages in dialogue with North Korea , it wants to attack Iraq

OTTAWA --Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has no, or hardly any friends left. From the Arab countries to left-leaning regimes, all have seemed to abandon him. There is little doubt his days are numbered as the U.S. President talks of action against Saddam "within weeks and not months." But, according to polls, public opinion in many Western democracies is against any military intervention in Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.

This week, on Wednesday Feb. 5, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is to brief the UN Security Council on further evidence against the Iraqi leadership. Canada 's Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham got a foretaste of it when he met Secretary Powell in Washington last week. Evidently, Minister Graham was not convinced sufficiently to change Canada 's stance, which is to allow the matter to be handled through the United Nations system.

In a similar dramatic and much-publicized move, British Prime Minister Tony Blair a few months ago presented a dossier of evidence against the Iraqi regime. It turned out to be nothing more than a compilation of evidence already known with no incriminating evidence against the Iraqi leadership. Such dramatic actions beg the question, if this evidence has been known to the United States intelligence agencies, why then has it not been presented to the UN chief weapons inspector who, with a team of over 100, has been diligently working since November last year trying to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction. One understands the rational that the U.S. does not want to expose its sources but this should not be the reason for withholding important information from the world body.

Last Monday on Jan. 27, Hans Blix, executive chair of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), and Mohamed El-Baradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) briefed the UN Security Council on their work over the past two months in Iraq . Mr. Blix told the Security Council that on the whole, Iraq has cooperated rather well with the UN mission and added, "access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception, it has been prompt."

However, according to Mr. Blix, the 12,000-page arms declaration submitted by Baghdad , while containing some new information, regrettably leaves many questions unanswered. There is concern about the lack of evidence as to what happened to the deadly VX nerve agent which Iraq claims was produced on a pilot scale, in small amounts and in such poor quality that it was never weaponized and was subsequently destroyed. The weapons inspection chief claims to have information which conflicts with this Iraqi claim. The UN team also found a box containing some 3,000 pages of documents at the home of a scientist after Baghdad had claimed that it had no more papers to turn over. The UN inspection has asked for additional time to complete its work but it is unlikely to get an extension of more than a couple of weeks.

It seems that the decision to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein will be made more on an ideological basis than technical information. The Bush administration is in a rush to remove Saddam Hussein, while a number of other countries, including Canada , are asking for additional time for the UN weapons inspectors to complete their work. The next UN weapons inspectors' report is scheduled to be presented to the UN Security Council on Feb. 14. It is widely believed that an attack on Iraq is imminent after the presentation of that report.

The ideological play is evident in Canada too. The Canadian Alliance is dismissive of the UN and is urging Canada to join the U.S. in a military action against Iraq . At the other end of the spectrum, the New Democratic Party is completely opposed to any action against Iraq, whether it is endorsed by the UN Security Council or not. The Bloc Québécois and the Progressive Conservatives will back any action proposed by the UN. It is the governing Liberals who are in a quandary. Thus far, the government has indicated that it prefers the matter to be resolved within the United Nations process. But what if the U.S. decides to go it alone with a couple of allies, such as Britain and Australia ? Will Canada then be on side with the U.S. decision or stay on the sidelines?

There are many questions being raised about the U.S. rush to attack Iraq . In recent months North Korea has announced that it is engaged in a nuclear program in violation of an agreement with the U.S. While North Korea expelled two international nuclear inspectors and shut off surveillance cameras at its nuclear labs, Iraq on the other hand has allowed over a hundred weapons inspectors into the country. While the U.S. engages in dialogue with North Korea , it wants to attack Iraq . Former South African President Nelson Mandela last week speculated, "They ( U.S. ) just want the oil." While Britain 's Tony Blair has managed to have seven other European leaders to sign a letter of support for U.S. action, two major European powers, France and Germany , are staying on the sidelines waiting for a verdict from the UN.

The attack on Iraq is more than a response to an imagined imminent threat from Iraq . Canada is right to stay the UN course.

December 9th, 2002

Resolution 181 is still valid

Fifty-five years ago, the United Nations conceived a solution for Palestine in the 11-page Resolution No. 181. It is valid today -- as it was then -- to finding a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On Nov. 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine, then under British mandate, into two independent states: one Arab, one Jewish, with the City of Jerusalem to be established as a separate entity under a special international regime and to be administered by the United Nations. Although much has changed in the ensuing half a century, including a couple of major wars, this UN resolution still remains the basis for a credible solution to the festering problem. Canada supported the resolution.

Although a Jewish state - Israel was created in the following year-1948. No parallel Arab state ever materialized. Gaza fell under Egyptian rule while Jordan took control of the West Bank and Jerusalem became a divided city. A couple of years later, Israel declared Jerusalem to be its historic capital, a dream realized following the ouster of Jordan from the West Bank and East Jerusalem , following the 1967 war. Much of the resentment in the Muslim world, against the West, in particular the United States of America , stems from the unfulfilled promise of an Arab entity. Jerusalem remains a city of great spiritual and religious significance for followers of three great faiths in the world: Christians, Jews and Muslims.

What appears to be a hopeful sign, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is quoted last week of having told a conference in Jerusalem last week that he accepts U.S. President George W. Bush's plan outlined last June, which calls for "two states for two peoples - Israel and Palestine ." While expressing "doubts, reservations and fears" Mr. Sharon stated "I have come to the conclusion that in the present regional and international reality, Israel must act with courage to accept the political plan..." In return for "cessation of terror," Mr. Sharon said, " Israel will not re-control territories from which it withdrew as a result of political agreements."

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict's landscape is littered with peace plans, however, one cannot help but share Mr. Sharon 's optimism for President Bush's plan, and ultimately that of the UN for the creation of two states. While half a century of bitter conflict and wars will not see a quick and easy realization of two states, as originally envisaged and meticulously described in two pages the UN Resolution 181, the international community and both parties to the conflict, there is hope that current borders may indeed become an acceptable international boundary between two states.

UN Resolution 181 called for the two states to "draft a democratic constitution... recruit armed militia from the residents of the state, sufficient in number to maintain internal order and to prevent frontier clashes," and preserve "freedom of transit and visit for residents and citizens of the other state in Palestine and the City of Jerusalem, subject to considerations of national security..."

In ensuring protection of religious and minority rights, the resolution called for no restriction to be imposed on "the free use by any citizen of the State of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, in religion, in the press or in publications of any kind, or at public meetings. No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State ) shall be allowed except for public purposes."

The far-sighted UN resolution also called for the Economic Union of Palestine, which would include a customs union with "a common custom tariff with complete freedom of trade between the states," a joint currency system providing for a single foreign exchange, joint economic development, especially in respect of irrigation, land reclamation and soil conservation, and access for both States and for the City of Jerusalem on a non-discriminatory basis to water and power facilities. A Joint Economic Board was to "endeavor to secure for Palestine 's exports fair and equal access to world markets."

The five-member UN Commission charged to oversee the transition period faced a challenging task. In its report to the General Assembly it stated that "the armed hostility of both Palestinian and non-Palestinian Arab elements, the lack of co-operation from the mandatory power (Britain), the disintegrating security situation in Palestine, and the fact that the Security Council did not furnish the Commission with the necessary armed assistance, are the factors which have made it impossible for the Commission to implement the Assembly's resolution."

In its concluding paragraph of its report to the General Assembly, the Commission warned "...in the absence of forces adequate to restore and maintain law and order in Palestine following the termination of the Mandate, there will be administrative chaos, starvation, widespread strife, violence and bloodshed in Palestine, including Jerusalem." This is what ensued and has been the legacy of the region. The Commission held its last meeting on May 17, 1948.

The State of Israel was born on May 14, 1948 but no State of Palestine materialized. Therein lies the crux of the current problem. The international community should re-visit Resolution 181.

December 2nd, 2002

NATO membership comes with a heavy price tag

What alternative is there to NATO? The answer, the European Union

A decade after peace broke out following the demise of both the Soviet Union and the Yugoslav Federation, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - a military alliance -- is busy enlarging by recruiting new member states.

When the Cold War ended with the symbolic tearing down of the Berlin Wall, it was assumed that the world, in particular Europe , would enjoy a peace dividend with less spending on defence and more on social programs and human resource development. But that was not to be. Instead, what has transpired is more of the same - as if the Cold War were still with us. Take for instance the expansion mood in NATO and the need to keep the military machine well-greased and oiled.

The 19 NATO member states invited seven European countries to join the military alliance at the Prague Summit on Nov. 21 and 22. An additional number of European countries are anxiously waiting their turn to be invited to join.

Why the rush to get into NATO, which was founded in 1949 in Washington , D.C. , primarily to contain Communism? Especially since Communism is dead and so is NATO's counterpart the Warsaw Pact. Therefore, who needs NATO? Who is the enemy now? Against whom is NATO expected to fight, especially when the arch Cold War enemy Soviet Union is splintered and the remnant Russia is already cooperating with NATO through the Russia-NATO Council formed in Rome in May, 2002?

When one asks European diplomats about their haste to join NATO, hardly any of them can put forth a convincing reason, other than psychological fear of being conquered and subjugated again as has been the case in during much of Europe 's history. The continent's recent history is especially painful following the Second World War when Soviet troops stormed into Hungary , Poland and the Baltic states of Lithuania , Latvia and Estonia to establish complete and brutal control. In 1968, the Soviet troops invaded Czechoslavakia without any resistance from any quarter. This psychological fear, more than any other reason, perhaps explains the European rush to NATO.

The Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel told the Summit , "The principal adversary of the values espoused by the Allinace is not a state power or a great power that could somehow be located in one way or another. The enemy is now represented by an evil that is widely diffused and very dangerous indeed - an evil that we find very difficult to grasp, or even fathom."

If NATO was dithering to find a clear purpose for its existence, U.S. President George Bush laid out the new-found purpose for NATO at the Prague Summit: "Our NATO Alliance faces dangers very different from those it was formed to confront...The Soviet Union is gone, but freedom still has enemies. We're threatened by terrorism, bred within failed states, it's present within our own cities...For terrorists and terrorist states, every free nation - every free nation - is a potential target, including the free nations of Europe ."

But NATO membership comes with a heavy price tag. "Ours is a military alliance, and every member must make a military contribution to that alliance. For some allies, this will require higher defence spending," according to President Bush. The NATO Secretary General was more blunt when he told the Prague Summit, "There is no room for passengers. Every NATO member has to add value, to be a net producer of security in an uncertain world."

This is a further burden for the emerging free market economies of Eastern Europe since scarce financial resources will now require to be invested in defence procurement instead of human resource or infrastructure development. Not only are the fragile democracies being coerced to spend more on defence but will also accumulate heavy national debts after upgrading military equipment in order to achieve the required compatibility with current NATO-member forces. It is likely that many of these struggling free market economies will buy military equipment from the United States of America with readily available loans, which will make them further beholden to the U.S. This lack of investment in capital goods will have a further negative impact on the economies for decades to come. Ironically, no one in NATO knows or does not want to talk about the cost for each country to join the military alliance. Canada , for its part, contributes $150-million a year.

What alternative is there to NATO? The answer, the European Union.

The European Union (EU), since its founding in 1958 with only six members has now expanded to 15. It has brought stability, prosperity and social progress on the continent, through its well coordinated policies and programs. The EU has also recognized the necessity of a defence force and plans to develop a rapid deployment force - similar to the one being considered by NATO.

NATO and the EU seem to be moving on parallel tracks with the ultimate aim of creating a secure and stable Europe free of the ravages of wars it has suffered so frequently. But Europe will need to make a choice between throwing money and resources at military machines or investing in people and infrastructure.

November 18th, 2002

The next step in Iraq

What will Canada do, if the U.S. proceeds to take military action against Iraq ?

The unanimous (15-0) passage of the U.S. and British-sponsored United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, on Nov. 8, raises a number of questions about the next step, if Iraq does not comply.

The foremost question now is whether the Security Council is required to authorize further action against Iraq for non-compliance or can some individual member state(s) initiate action?

However, the final answer, whether Iraq complied with the resolution, will be known by Jan. 8, i.e., 60 days after the adoption of the resolution, when the weapons inspectors will report on their findings to the UN Security Council. The joint heads of the UN weapons inspection team, Hans Blix, executive chair of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and Mohamed El-Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, are scheduled to arrive in Iraq today, Nov. 18, to lay the groundwork for weapons inspection teams to start arriving in Iraq .

The resolution gave Iraq seven days in which to accept the resolution, which it did last week, though after some hesitancy and only after every other country as well as the Arab League, encouraged it to do so.

The demanding Security Council Resolution requires the Iraqi government provide the UN weapons inspectors and the Security Council, within 30 days "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and disposal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the location and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material." Iraq in a six-page letter accepting the UN weapons inspectors denies having any weapons of mass destruction.

Paragraph 4 of Resolution 1441 states that "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq " shall constitute a "material breach" of Iraq 's obligations. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told a press conference in Ottawa last Thursday that if Iraq does not "give us a complete and accurate declaration or if there is a lack of compliance with the inspectors...no further judgment is needed on the part of the inspection team or the Security Council."

What if Iraq violates any of the conditions, will the Security Council then meet to consider the next step, or will the United Sates and Britain , along with like-minded countries launch a military strike against Iraq ?

Secretary Powell said he did not want "to say here now what we might do in the event of a particular incident" which could be perceived as a violation of the UN Security Council resolution. He gave credibility to fears that the U.S. will act unilaterally when he said, "If the UN decided, for one reason or other, not to act, then we would put together a strong coalition of like-minded nations."

However, Prime Minister Chrétien's statement released following the passage of Res. 1441 states that failing compliance by Iraq , the Security Council "will reconvene immediately to consider the situation and the need to secure international peace and security."

But, what will Canada do, if the U.S. proceeds to take military action against Iraq , without UN Security Council approval? Will it abandon its staunch belief in the multilateral approach and be obliged to back the U.S. action? Will a retiring Prime Minister dare to keep Canada on the sidelines if the country's almost only trading partner is involved in a major military undertaking?

U.S. Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, also hinted at U.S. unilateral action against Iraq, when he told the Security Council on Nov. 8, following the passing of Resolution 1441, that if the Security Council failed to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violation, the resolution did not constraint any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security. Having said that, the U.S. ambassador also told the Council that the resolution contained no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with the use of force. But will the United States use the premise of protecting world peace to launch military action against Iraq ?

But the Mexican representative on the Security Council, Adolpho Aguilar Zinser, seemed to think that the resolution had eliminated "automaticity" in the use of force as a result of material breach and that the use of force was only valid as a last resort, with prior, explicit authorization of the Council.

There are also the questions whether any Iraqi activities in the no-fly zone, established since the 1991 Gulf War, will be considered violation of the recent UN resolution.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has earned much global goodwill for the Bush administration for working through the United Nations to give President Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity" to comply with the UN resolutions. One hopes the UN continues to be the forum for discussing world issues.

November 4th, 2002

EU admits divided country of Cyprus and yet rejects Turkey 's application

What part of Cyprus will become a member of the EU? The Greek or the Turkish?

The European Union (EU) is in an expansion mode, but not everyone is allowed in. Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia are scheduled to join the existing 15 EU members in time for the elections to the European Parliament scheduled in June, 2004. However, Turkey , which applied to join long before the current crop of applicants in 1987, is being told to continue to wait patiently.

There is quiet concern that entry to the much-sought-after EU membership is being used as a political pawn by a current member Greece . How else does one explain the acceptance of the divided island-nation of Cyprus and not Turkey . The Turkish-Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash told us in July in Girne , Cyprus that Greece is "blackmailing Europe" by threatening to veto any new members' entry to the EU, if Cyprus is not accepted. It seems Greece succeeded.

The turf war between Greece and Turkey is over the 800,000 inhabitants on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus . These two countries have tangled over the island ever since it gained independence from Britain in 1960: Greece wanting to annex it and Turkey wanting to protect the Turkish minority. With no suitable solution to establishing a harmonious Greek-Turkish nation-state, Cyprus has remained a divided country since 1974. Since then, 40 per cent of the northern part, known as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has been inhabited by 18 per cent of the predominantly Turkish population of the island, and the remainder by 77 per cent Greek population and other small minorities including Armenians, Maronites and British descendents.

The United Nations-sponsored weekly face-to-face talks between the Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders, Rauf Denktash and Glafcos Clerides respectively, held as recently as last month have not produced any results. Therefore, in its haste to extend membership to Cyprus which in practice means the Greek-Cypriot part of the island, the EU has permanently damaged prospects for unification of the island. As the Turkish Cypriot National Assembly Speaker Dr. Vehbi Zeki Serter told some of us visiting Cyprus in July, "The Republic of Cyprus does not exist." The solution now would be to accept the existence of two sovereign and equal states on the island and as such accord them appropriate international recognition. There is no movement of people or goods across the UN supervised buffer zone.

There are no unifying symbols on Cyprus . For instance, there is no national anthem of Cyprus . Instead, each community sings the tune of its respective "protector" -- Greece or Turkey . The respective communities fly Turkish and Greek flags. This is what makes it hard to understand the basis on which the European Union justifies admitting a divided country? What part of Cyprus will become a member of the EU? The Greek or the Turkish?

To make matters worse the EU rejected Turkey 's application for membership. However, Turkey is being told that there is still lingering hope for its membership of the EU when European leaders meet for the summit in December in Copenhagen . Since Greece seems to have succeeded in holding the EU to ransom to approve Cyprus' entry to the EU, it does not now feel compelled to smooth Turkey's entry to the EU.

The European Union has successfully expanded from its original six members to the current 15, is likely to face many challenges as it prepares for its largest historic intake of 10 new members. These countries of central and Eastern Europe , which only a dozen years ago were under Communist rule, will bring a wealth of different histories and cultures. However, given its successful expansion track record, there is little doubt that the European Union will not also meet this new challenge.

In order to join the EU, a prospective member must be a stable democracy, respecting human rights, the rule of law, and the protection of minorities; have a functioning market economy; and adopt the common rules, standards and policies that make up the body of EU law. The EU provides the member countries a range of financial assistance to improve their infrastructure and economy, including the massive much-criticized U.S. $300-billion in subsidies for farmers.

While Turkey recently has taken various measures to qualify for membership of the EU, including abolishing the death penalty and permitting the use of minority languages and broadcasts in these languages, especially Kurdish, according to the European Commission, Turkey does not yet meet "the political conditions."

Turkey's strategic geo-political location earned it membership of NATO during the Cold War and currently its soldiers are part of the U.S.-led force in Afghanistan and its bases will help in any attack on Iraq but its 67 million people mostly of Muslim faith are quietly cited as one possible reason why Europeans are apprehensive of accepting it as the first Muslim member of the European Union. For this, the Greek opposition, Cyprus factor, or whatever other reason, it appears Turkey will be waiting outside the European door for a while to come.

October 21st, 2002

Keith Martin desperately seeking limelight

Dialogue, diplomacy but not demonizing is the Canadian way. But this seems to be lost on the Canadian Alliance MP Keith Martin.

This week the Alliance MP is planning to introduce a motion in the House asking the government to expel Zimbabwe 's High Commissioner to Canada . He is also seeking to recall recently-appointed Canadian High Commissioner to Zimbabwe , to expel Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, to haul President Mugabe before the International Criminal Court, and even proposed to send a "peace-making" force into that country. What will all this achieve? And, will it help resolve the situation in Zimbabwe ? Absolutely not! All this exercise will result in, is provide some limelight for the flustered MP Martin.

Mr. Martin believes land is not the issue in Zimbabwe . Any student of history or political situation in Zimbabwe will tell you that land is the root cause of the problems in Zimbabwe . Since this basic fact is lost on the Alliance MP, his whole argument against the Mugabe government is wasted.

Having spent some years in the early 80s living in the then newly-independent Zimbabwe , I met farmers some of whom boastfully would tell about being given land in return for their service in the army in other British colonies of India or Burma . Since many of the British did not want to return home and in the hope of perpetuating colonial hold over the then colony of Rhodesia (renamed Zimbabwe at independence), many whites were lured by offers of land to settle in Zimbabwe . This created a major problem as newly-arrived white farmers dispossessed the indigenous black farmers, for whom the only recourse was to become farm labourers under the new colonial masters.

At independence in 1980, Zimbabwe 's first democratically-elected government of President Mugabe vowed to honour its promise of land redistribution. It promised to restore the confiscated land back to its rightful owners. At independence, and on various subsequent occasions, Britain promised to help the new Zimbabwean government with the resettlement of landless blacks. There had been success stories of resettlement programs, such as the one in Kenya following its independence in 1963. But, Britain continued to renege on its promise to help the Zimbabwean government buy back willing-seller white-owned farms for settling blacks. Under this scheme, the white farmers would have been able to sell their farms at a fair market price, the Zimbabwean government would have been to fulfill its promise to restore the land back to the black farmers and the international donor community would have helped in the resettlement program with training programs and providing initial agricultural inputs for making it a successful venture. This would have been a win-win situation for all. Unfortunately, Britain reneged, and the whole scheme came unraveled. This is the brief history of Zimbabwe 's land problem.

The result was lawlessness and squatters moving onto abandoned farms. In the process the Mugabe government got a black eye on the international scene for failing to protect the white farmers and letting law and order disintegrate.

With no financial assistance forthcoming from Britain or the international community to resolve this politically-charged issue, the Zimbabwean government undertook to proceed with its own land re-distribution program. It aimed to target only those white farmers with multiple farms and promised to compensate only for the improvements on the land but not for the land since it claims it was stolen in the first place. A number of private commercial enterprises and commercial banks are helping the Zimbabwean government finance the resettlement program.

To date, 354,000 black Zimbabwean families have been resettled. Among this large number there are bound to be some who are related to President Mugabe. But it would be stretching the imagination to think that this large number is made up only of the relatives of the President as alleged by Mr. Martin.

The other often-repeated allegation of the Alliance MP is that President Mugabe has "engineered a famine" is also a fallacy. Otherwise how does he explain the drought, which has struck much of Southern Africa, including Zimbabwe 's neighbors Malawi , Mozambique and Zambia ? By Mr. Martin's logic one could lay the blame for the drought in western Canada also at the doorsteps of President Mugabe.

One often wonders why, of the 54 member countries of the Commonwealth, only three - Britain, Australia and New Zealand, which all also happen to be white, are the only ones leading the charge against President Mugabe, while neighbouring countries, including South Africa are calling for resolution through dialogue and diplomacy.

Canada is on the right track to remain engaged in various international efforts to resolve the situation in Zimbabwe . The recently-appointed Canadian High Commissioner John Schram, a seasoned Africanist, is right to have told President Mugabe when presenting credentials on October 10, "We believe land reform is central and can be done in a way that will ensure food production." To this President Mugabe responded, "Engage us in the normal Canadian way."

October 7th, 2002

Canada 's federal politicians are in a big quandary over

It persists in not knowing what to do if and when the U.S. decides to launch a unilateral military attack

Canada is in a quandary. Should it or should it not join the U.S. in an attack on Iraq to remove President Saddam Hussein? Should it wait until the United Nations sanctions such an action? What will Canada do if the U.S. decides to go ahead, without the approval of the UN Security Council? Three of the five Security Council permanent members China , France, and Russia , are still holding out against sanctioning military action against Iraq , with only Britain supporting the U.S. Is Canada a victim of its geography and condemned to support any U.S. action against Iraq ? Will Canada 's friendship, particularly hefty positive balance of trade with the U.S. suffer, if this country does not join the U.S. in an attack on Iraq ?

These and many other questions were raised during the debate on Iraq in the House of Commons last week. Liberal, Bloc Québécois, New Democrat and Progressive Conservative MPs cautioned against any hasty and quick military action against Saddam Hussein, but the Canadian Alliance expressed unequivocal support for an immediate U.S. attack on Iraq .

While many MPs credit U.S. President George W. Bush for recently going before the UN General Assembly to present his case against Iraq , they now also want him to await UN Security Council authorization, which would symbolize international consensus, prior to launching any military attack against Iraq .

Cautioning the U.S. against unilateral action, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham told the House, "unilateral action may have the benefit of clarity but it would lack international legitimacy. As well it risks destabilizing world order and possibly destroying the credibility of the United Nations itself. It risks destabilizing the Middle East . It risks destabilizing countries well beyond the region, to Pakistan , and with it the efforts that we are making in Afghanistan to recreate peace in that community, to Indonesia , to India and Malaysia where large Muslim populations watch with concern these developments."

According to Minister Graham obtaining a UN Security Council resolution would provide Iraq with a "fair and final opportunity to comply with the UN's inspections" of alleged stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, "set out the consequences if it fails to do so."

During the debate on the situation in Iraq , some MPs cited lack of credible evidence against Saddam Hussein to effect regime change, while others questioned U.S. motives for wanting to attack Iraq now, and some questioned the moral right of one nation to attack another to remove a leader.

As to U.S. President Bush's motives for wanting to attack Iraq , New Democrat MP Svend Robinson told the House, "This is all about fulfilling what his father did not finish. It is about regime change. It is about oil. It is about mid-term elections and we in Canada must not be a party to that violence and that brutality."

Similarly, Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis reasoned, "The United States is going into Congressional and Senate elections and needs an external evil to rally Republican voters to go to the polls."

Another Liberal MP Bonnie Brown also questioned, " America , which has not yet caught last year's villain, is arranging a comeback for the villain of 1990. Is this because of the United States ' faltering economy? Is it to distract from the scandals of corporate corruption and falling stock markets? Is it to ignite fires of patriotism and support the President just before a November election so he can gain a majority of seats in the Senate? Is it about a secure supply of oil or more business for the arms manufacturers?"

According to Secretary of State for Central and Eastern Europe and the Middle East , Liberal MP Gar Knutson, since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1978 his regime has pursued essentially two policies: "the ruthless repression of its own people and military aggression against its neighbours with the aims of asserting regional dominance and acquiring territory."

Canadian Alliance MP Rahim Jaffer said he thinks, "Saddam Hussein poses a world threat, a threat to his people in the region and to other democracies around the world. He may even possess, and actually the proof is there, the type of military equipment to be able to do so."

But, while Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper said he thinks British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently "laid out in great detail the efforts of Saddam Hussein to acquire new weapons of mass destruction and to conceal existing ones unaccounted for at the end of the Gulf War," Liberal MP Colleen Beaumier called it yet "another non-proof document."

Progressive Conservative Leader Joe Clark urged taking the UN route to getting a resolution to the Iraq stalemate and his colleague Bill Casey advised taking "the diplomatic route, at least at first."

The quandary for Canada persists in not knowing what to do if and when the U.S. decides to launch a unilateral military attack against Iraq . It could stay on the sidelines as it did during the Vietnam War.

September 30th, 2002

How are Bush's observations any different from Jean Chrétien's?

The Bush administration recently released a 31-page National Security Strategy. Call it a doctrine or a document - it is the most comprehensive and forthright policy pronouncement from the Bush White House on its intentions in foreign, defence and national security areas.

In the preface to the document, U.S. President George Bush states: "Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders."

How is this observation any different from Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's statement about the vulnerability of weak and failed states, such as Afghanistan , from becoming havens for terrorists? While Osama bin Laden is/was a rich man, his recruits came from poor or failed states such as Afghanistan , or where coupled with these conditions anti-Americanism was also ripe, as in Saudi Arabia , Pakistan , Yemen , and Sudan . Toss in a bit of religious fundamentalism, and one has terrorists willing to undertake suicide missions.

While Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper tried to score political points by criticizing Mr. Chrétien's statement and asking him to apologize to the Americans, experienced politician and Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party Joe Clark agreed that "it is beyond question that there is a direct relation between those phenomena (poverty, extremism and terror)" and added "it was appropriate for the Prime Minister to say so." Even the Bush document states: " America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones."

One cannot also dismiss the perceived failure of the U.S. government in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because of its unconditional support for Israel . To those familiar with the Arab world, there is no doubt, the "Arab street" is a friend of the United States . The young Arabs envy the freedom and fashion of the U.S. What they fail to comprehend is the United States ' support for autocratic and dictatorial leaders in the Muslim countries. One can safely predict that just as the Afghanis with blaring radios danced in the streets of the capital Kabul following the U.S.-led attack, a similar scene will be repeated in Baghdad . If President Bush were to put half the effort to establishing a Palestinian state as he is putting into removing Saddam Hussein, his job of achieving the latter will be much easier to accomplish.

The Bush "Doctrine" chapters cover such areas as human dignity, strengthening alliances, regional conflicts, weapons of mass destruction, economic growth through free markets and free trade, opening societies and building democracy, cooperating with "other centres of global power," and transforming U.S. national security institutions. The document devotes considerable space to fighting terrorism and encouraging "free trade and free markets" which have "proven their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty." The President puts the world on notice that the war against terrorists is "of global reach...a global enterprise...of uncertain duration."

President Bush acknowledges, "the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence," but "we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage." While many are accusing the US of acting unilaterally, according to President Bush "no nation can build a safer, better world alone."

President Bush dispels any doubts that the U.S. will build a national missile defence system and writes, "We will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other means of delivery."

It dismisses signing a Kyoto-like deal and on the newly-established International Criminal Court, the document states unequivocally "efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court, whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept."

The document acknowledges "There is little of lasting consequence that the United States can accomplish in the world without the sustained cooperation of its allies and friends in Canada and Europe ." It calls on NATO to develop "new structures and capabilities" to carry out missions under "new circumstances," including building "a capability to field, at short notice, highly mobile, specially trained forces whenever they are needed to respond to a threat against any member of the alliance."

The most telling signal in the document is that the U.S. national security strategy will be based on "a distinctly American internationalism," but warns the U.S. "will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country."

In the end, one is left wondering, is the U.S. pursuing unilateralism or multilateralism?

September 16th, 2002

Iraqis deserve tranquility

If and when the United States attacks Iraq , Canada will be on side. It will offer whatever moral and military support it can muster.

However, meanwhile, Canada must go through the motions of seeming to be deciding whether to back the U.S. or not in the event of an attack on Iraq . Towards this end, the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee will meet this week and the House on its return will most likely hold an emergency debate on proposed U.S. action against Iraq .

U.S. President George W. Bush came to the United Nations General Assembly last Thursday to make the case against Iraq . In so doing he knew he faced an uphill task to convince world leaders of the necessity to attack Iraq . Thus far, the U.S. is supported only by Britain and Israel in its desire to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who has ruled this country of 23 million since 1979.

While he presented no new evidence, President Bush listed a series of UN resolutions not yet complied by Iraq under President Saddam Hussein. According to the White House, Iraq has violated some 16 United Nations Security Council Resolutions over the past decade. Apart from withdrawing from Kuwait, which he invaded almost 12 years ago, Hussein was required by UN resolutions to allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction, not develop new weapons of mass destruction, stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq, help account for missing Kuwaitis and other nationals, including one American pilot, return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War and cease the repression of his own people. President Bush told the United Nations, "by breaking every pledge...Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself." He also accused Iraq of producing and storing biological and chemical weapons, as well as wanting to develop nuclear weapons.

The issue of allowing unconditional access to international weapons inspectors may help avert an attack on Iraq . It has been four years since the last UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq . President Bush wants the unconditional return of these inspectors to Iraq , as does most of the international community. Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham also called for an "immediate and unconditional access to UN weapons inspection teams in compliance with its UN Security Council obligations." Failing to abide by this demand, Iraq will leave itself vulnerable to an attack by an international force, which will most likely be sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. Of the five permanent members of the Council, whose votes are essential to approve such an attack, only China is expected to abstain, while Britain , France , Russia will support it.

In their speeches to the United Nations General Assembly on the same day that U.S. President George W. Bush spoke to the UN General Assembly, both UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham spoke of pursuing multilateralism over unilateral actions by nations. In making his case for an international response the UN Secretary General mentioned "multilateralism" almost 10 times and told the General Assembly that the statesmen of 1945 in founding the United Nations recognized that "by agreeing to exercise sovereignty together, they could gain a hold over problems that would defeat any of them acting separately." The challenge for the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee is to come up with a bold and visionary plan to avoid loss of more innocent Iraqi lives and further destruction of infrastructure. The Commons committee is fortunately made up of experienced MPs, including Svend Robinson, Sarkis Assadourian, Marlene Jennings, Francine Lalonde, and Bill Casey, who are knowledgeable about the Middle East and its challenges and will hopefully propose an internationally accepted solution.

Iraq , the only country in the Middle East blessed both with water and oil and its people who trace their civilization to the famed days of Babylon , deserve tranquillity. "They've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a moral cause, and a strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it," as President Bush rightly told the United Nations.

August 19th, 2002

British colonial injustices continue to haunt troubled Zimbabwe

Problems could have been avoided had international community helped finance land distribution programs

Land has and continues to dominate political and economic life in Zimbabwe . The recent acquisition of white commercial farmers' land by the Zimbabwean government for distribution to landless blacks has attracted much attention in the West.

In Canada , Liberal MP David Pratt is calling for hauling Zimbabwe 's President Robert Mugabe before the International Criminal Court and his country from the Commonwealth. Canadian Alliance MP Keith Martin accuses President Mugabe of "engaging in state terrorism against his own people" and is calling for an international force to intervene in Zimbabwe .

But none of these knee-jerk reactions is a solution to resolving the situation in Zimbabwe . Canada 's Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham has taken a sensible approach by calling the events in Zimbabwe as "disturbing" and promising to "continue to monitor the situation."

Unfortunately, those engaged in hysteria aimed at demonizing Mr. Mugabe, fail to understand that land will remain a political hot potato -- regardless of who is the president of Zimbabwe -- until it is satisfactorily resolved.

Mr. Mugabe, who has won five elections since Zimbabwe became independent in 1980, led the liberation movement during which 50,000 blacks died fighting to recover their stolen land and put an end to colonial rule. The unfairness of the situation is reflected in the fact that at the time of independence in 1980, three per cent of the white population owned 51 million acres of the most arable land, while 97 per cent of the black population eked out subsistence living on 45 million acres.

Two decades after independence, about 4,100 white farmers in a population of 12 million blacks still own 70 per cent of the country's best land.

How the whites, mostly British, came to own such huge tracts of land is the sordid story of colonialism. About 20 years ago when I went to buy a piece of land outside the capital Harare, the white farm owner told me he had been given the land for his services as an officer in the British Army in India.

A similar story of land grants following the Second World War is the story of British colonial legacy in Africa . Most of the indigenous black farmers were never compensated for the loss of their small-scale subsistence farms. Instead, many of them ended up working for the new white owners as labourers. Many black farm labourers can recall when their fathers or grandfathers used to own the very land on which they are now employed as labourers.

For the first 10 years after independence from Britain in 1980, the Mugabe government decided to pursue a policy of "willing seller/willing buyer" policy. The government was anxious to acquire as much land as possible to satisfy the need to settle the many black Zimbabweans who had fought to recover the land, which was stolen from them.

The white farmers balked at selling their huge land holdings, often asking double or triple the market price. The British government also reneged on its promise to provide financial assistance after independence to help meet the land re-distribution plans of the government. This coupled, with financial constraints on the newly independent nation's resources, made it almost impossible for the government to satisfy the land hunger among its black landless population. In the first decade after independence, from 1980-1990, the government could only settle 71,000 families out of a targeted 162,000.

International donor conferences in 1980 and 1998 failed to generate the necessary resources to implement the government's land re-distribution programs. At the last attempt to find a negotiated solution at a conference at Abuja , Nigeria in September 2001, the British government agreed to provide financial assistance as well as help mobilize international donors.

During the first seven years after independence, 20 of the 100 seats in the Zimbabwe parliament were reserved for whites to protect their interests. Frustrated and seeing the futility of the "willing seller/willing buyer" scheme, President Mugabe embarked on acquiring white farmers' land at government established prices. The owners were to have recourse to the courts in case dispute resulted over the price offered by the government.

The Mugabe government's actions were also prompted by British Secretary of State Clare Short who reneged on earlier promises and announced that, "We do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe ."

Previously, in similar cases, Britain had financed the sale of British owned farms -- such as in Kenya -- to assist the government in settling black farmers. At this stage, Britain launched a full frontal diplomatic and media attack against the Mugabe government.

In the Commonwealth Australia, New Zealand led by Britain essentially ignored the longstanding historic inequity of the land distribution and instead made it look like a racial issue. It pitted the "white" Commonwealth against the rest. To Canada 's credit, it stayed out of the British sway.

No African government has severed links with Zimbabwe or criticized President Mugabe's actions in solving the land problem. Zimbabwe 's neighbor, South Africa , is facing a similar land re-distribution problem but has established a commission to resolve the potentially explosive issue. Last year, there were attempts by frustrated landless blacks to take over white farmlands in South Africa but police quickly quelled the attempt.

At the insistence of Britain , Australia and New Zealand , the Commonwealth at its Heads of Government Meeting earlier this year suspended Zimbabwe for a year. Britain is also using its membership in the European Union to garner actions against the Mugabe government and is alleged to be funneling money and resources to the opposition parties and groups in Zimbabwe . While Britain continues its attempts to isolate President Mugabe, he has only recently returned from successful visits to Malaysia and Singapore .

The current state could have been avoided if the international community had paid heed to calls for financing to buy white farms and aided in redistribution of them to black landless Zimbabweans. An international commission to ensure transparency and to ensure fairness could have overseen this exercise. Unfortunately, Canada failed to see this issue clearly and consequently to take the lead in establishing such an exercise. Our leaders were perhaps listening to British advise with its inherent colonial bias rather than chalking its own independent course.

While some media reports attribute drought conditions in Zimbabwe to President Mugabe's policies, one must realize that similar conditions exist in neighbouring countries of Malawi , Zambia , Mozambique , Botswana and northern South Africa . Recently Canada 's International Cooperation Minister Susan Whelan, in announcing a $34-million drought relief package for the countries of the region, also included Zimbabwe .

When will the situation return to normal in Zimbabwe ? When the historic British colonial injustices have been addressed and the promise of the long and bitter freedom of struggle to provide equitable redistribution of land fulfilled. In the process there will be more hiccups but it is the only solution to restoring justice and dignity to the people of Zimbabwe .

Canada should play an active role to help ensure the success of this exercise.

August 5th, 2002

So what part of Cyprus will become a member of EU?

GIRNE , CYPRUS --No single entity known as Republic of Cyprus exists on this Mediterranean island. Instead there are two de facto states -- Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), the 78-year old charismatic President Rauf Denktash of TRNC, told an international gathering here recently.

Cyprus is made up of two peoples -- Greeks and Turks and their two respective cultures and religions: Greek Orthodox and Islam. The two entities even have their own national anthems, which happen to be those of Greece and Turkey . There is no national anthem of Cyprus !

Furthermore, since 1974, there is no movement of people or goods between the two states. The border between the two is effectively sealed with fenced buffer zone patrolled by United Nations peacekeeping force, UNFICYP, keeping Greek and Turk origin Cypriots apart. The border even splits the capital Nicosia , with the Turkish side now renamed Lefkosia.

For all practical purposes, therefore, Cyprus is an island of two states: one Greek Cypriot and the other Turkish Cypriot. But the international community, including all members of the United Nations, except Turkey , does not recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus . This two-states status is wracking havoc in the diplomatic world.

Cyprus , which became independent of Britain in 1960, experienced the same tribulations of population displacement as post-colonial India-Pakistan and Israel-Palestine. The 1960 Constitution worked out an idealistic formula whereby Cyprus would have a president from the majority Greek Cypriot population and a vice-president from the minority Turkish Cypriots. The demographic reality was also to be reflected in the makeup of the Council of Ministers with seven Greek Cypriots and three Turkish Cypriots and the House of Commons to have 35 Greek Cypriots and 15 Turkish Cypriots. At present, the Turkish who account for 18 per cent of the population, occupy 40 per cent of the northern part of the island while Greeks account for 77 per cent of the population. Other five per cent of the population includes Armenians, Latins, Maronites and British descendants.

In 1963, the constitutional arrangement of 1960 fell apart with the Turkish population accusing the Greek Cypriot counterparts of helping to annex the island to Greece . For the next 11 years the Turkish representatives stayed out of the power sharing institutions and the Turkish population alleges to have been victimized by the Greek Cypriots to cause their exodus. When in 1974, Greece backed a plan to topple the Cypriot government, Turkey invaded the island to defend Turkish Cypriots and stall any moves by Greece to annex the island.

Turkey justifies the intervention as its obligation as one of the guarantors of the 1960 constitution, Britain and Greece being the other two.

Britain stayed on the sidelines, perhaps it did not want to jeopardize the presence of its two bases on "sovereign" territory in Greek-Cypriot part of the island.

Most of the world sees Turkey 's 1974 military intervention as an invasion of the island and refuses to recognize the subsequently established Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus . But to most Turkish Cypriots non-recognition by the world does not mean non-existence of a viable state. According to the Speaker of the TRNC Assembly, Dr. Vehbi Zeki Serter, the day the Turkish troops landed on Cyprus , the Turkish Cypriots "began to live like human beings." He calls Turkish troops "troops of peace" because since their arrival there has been peace on the island with no fighting between the two communities.

To further muddy international waters Greece has been pushing for membership of Cyprus to the European Union. The question being asked is what part of Cyprus will become a member of the EU -- the whole Republic of Cyprus ? Or just the southern Greek-Cypriot dominated part? What will be the status of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ? Will the TRNC then be considered by the EU as illegally occupied territory by Turkey ? And how will all this impact on Turkey 's own applications for membership of the EU? The EU Copenhagen Summit in December of this year is to determine further course of action on Cyprus ' membership. TRNC President Denktash says Greece is "blackmailing Europe" by threatening to veto any new members to the EU, if Cyprus is not accepted.

Those favouring Cyprus 's entry to the EU are citing guarantees of minority rights as one of the fundamental aspects of the membership.

But the Turkish Cypriots remember only well enough when no country, except Turkey , came to their rescue during 11 years of harsh treatment at the hands of the majority Greek Cypriots. TRNC's Foreign Affairs and Defence Minister, Tahsin Ertugruloglu, told our international gathering that "EU is not a source of hope" and Cyprus 's membership in the EU "is nothing other than a huge threat to Turkish Cypriots."

Turkish Cypriot President Denktash and Greek Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides have been holding thrice weekly meeting for the last six months sponsored by the EU and the UN. Few in the diplomatic community think these talks will lead to any solution. They are seen as gestures to appease the world community and window-dressing in the hope of entry to the EU by Cyprus and Turkey .

The solution lies in accepting the reality of two states on this scenic and strategic island of Cyprus , and granting such recognition by the world community, and then independently pursuing the question of EU membership for both Turkey and Cyprus .

June 24th, 2002

The 800 million Africans deserve better treatment

Africa needs someone to champion their cause to create a level playing field in order for them to finally compete fairly on the world trade scene, it is time

This week Prime Minister Jean Chrétien steps into the limelight at the G8 Summit in Kananaskis, to champion a new partnership for Africa 's development. He will present G8 leaders' response to the African leaders' plan for a New Partnership for Africa 's Development (NEPAD). NEPAD pledges good governance and sound economic management. In return for financial assistance and investment flow from the developed countries African nations will strive to kick-start their sagging economies and reverse the trend of negative growth rates.

Mr. Chrétien faces a challenging task as there are other items competing for G8 leaders' attention. The two other items vying for attention on the G8 leaders' agenda are the coordination of international response to the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. and the state of the world economy. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the G8 foreign ministers' meeting in Whistler, B.C., two weeks ago, publicly stated there are other areas of the world as equally deserving of assistance as Africa . Other than discussion on counter-terrorism measures, the G8 leaders are also likely to focus on the India-Pakistan conflict and the ongoing and explosive situation in the Middle East . But as chair and dean of the G8 leaders, Mr. Chrétien is adamant that Africa will not be pushed off the agenda.

While NEPAD calls for an immediate infusion of $64-billion in assistance, Finance Minister John Manley managed to broker only a $22-billion aid package for the world's poorest countries with his G8 counterparts at the recent Halifax meeting. A decision was reached after much wrangling between the U.S. which favours giving half the money as outright grants and the European countries which prefer giving loans to developing countries. The arrangement reached will now see one-fifth of the total aid package given as grants for such basic needs as education, health, sanitation, supply of water and nutrition.

In keeping with its commitment to NEPAD, Canada has already committed $500-million Canadian for a new African assistance fund and an annual eight-per cent increase in overall development assistance. Last week International Cooperation Minister Susan Whelan added an additional $34.2-million Canadian to alleviate hunger in sub-Saharan Africa.

While African leaders are pleading for a reduction in trade tariffs and more open and increased access for their products to the industrialized countries, governments of these developed economies, including Canada, are busy announcing protectionist measures, such as the recently-announced subsidies to farmers. Just a couple of days before announcing aid to Canadian farmers, Prime Minister Chrétien told CBC-TV's Newsworld: "While there is $50-billion a year of aid going to Africa, you know, there is $350-billion dollars a year that the Americans and the Europeans are giving to their farmers to create artificial prices for food. It makes no sense."

Another policy that does not make sense is tied aid. Tied aid is reminiscent of the colonial experience when ruling powers bought raw materials from colonies, not at market prices, but for whatever they chose to pay. This policy currently requires countries receiving aid to spend almost two-thirds of the money to buy services and goods from the donor country. Algeria's African Affairs Minister Abdelkader Messahel, during a recent visit to Ottawa, said currently a $1-million aid package is split as follows: $600,000 back to the donor country for consultants' studies and reports, $300,000 in corruption on both sides, and only $100,000 filtering down to the intended recipients.

The almost hundred-year colonial experience was replaced by 40 years of Cold War during which Africa became the pawn between the two ideological camps -- the capitalist West and socialist East. Each bloc was more concerned about securing and sustaining spheres of influence than the economic welfare of the client states. Also, during this period, there was no desire on the part of the Western powers to encourage democratic institution building. For instance, the U.S. backed one-person dictatorial regime of General Mobutu in the resource-rich Zaire for over 40 years and the West backed the White minority apartheid regime in South Africa. This complicity and tacit support of corrupt regimes came at the expense of building institutions for good governance and sound economic management. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, there is now demand, and rightly so, for democratization in Africa. And African countries are responding favorably.

The West remains culpable in allegations of a culture of corruption in Africa. As the saying goes, it takes two hands to clap, western businesses have been complicit in funneling funds into African leaders' overseas numbered secret accounts in order to win lucrative contracts.

The 800 million Africans deserve better treatment at the hands of the developed economies. They need someone to champion their cause to create a level playing field in order for them to compete fairly on the world trade scene. The Africans will be watching closely as their perceived champion Prime Minister Chrétien guides G8 leaders to make good on some promises. Needless to say, NEPAD is not the be all and end all, but the launch of a process, to help end the marginalization of a promising continent.

June 3rd, 2002

Listen up, NATO has a role to play in preventive diplomacy

And preventive diplomacy can sometime only be effective if one is carrying the proverbial big stick, Canada

The new National Defence Minister John McCallum's success will be judged on how much more money he can secure for the department, according to Liberal MP David Pratt. Mr. Pratt's committee last week tabled a report "Facing Our Responsibilities" that calls for the defence budget to be increased from $12-billion to a hefty $18-billion.

While every minister tries to secure additional dollars to finance programs in his or her respective department, National Defence is almost an exception. When Kim Campbell became minister of National Defence she did a quick about-turn on her views on increased military spending. Within days she went from opposing the purchase of new helicopters to becoming a strong supporter of it. The generals at "headquarters" work their magic on the newcomer. It is a strange but recurring phenomenon. Whenever an MP or a new Minister gets within the confines of the National Defence Headquarters, it does not take long for them to become converts to more military spending.

Jean Chrétien never served in the National Defence portfolio, which perhaps explains why he remains a healthy skeptic of increased military spending, especially at the expense of social programs. Many of the 25 recommendations in the Commons Defence Committee report call for increased spending and procurement of equipment. The report also tries to cause unwarranted concern by mirroring U.S. style "Homeland Defence" whereas what most Canadians are concerned about is search and rescue capability. Only the Bloc Québécois opposed the report, preferring for wider consultations with Canadians in producing a defence policy paper.

On the international stage, 19 NATO leaders met in Rome on May 28 to establish Russia-NATO Council. "It is an opportunity to end the last divisions of the Cold War and to build a truly re-united Europe," Prime Minister Chrétien told the NATO summit. President Putin who until recently suspiciously eyed NATO expansion is now cohabiting with it. He will now not object to unilateral abandoning by the U.S. of the ABM Treaty and is also likely to drop his objection to the proposed U.S. missile defence system. Russia and the U.S. have now found a common enemy in terrorism. The U.S. no longer decries Russian actions in Chechnya against Muslim separatists. Earlier, U.S. President Bush during his visit to Kremlin signed an agreement with Russian President Putin to reduce long-range nuclear warheads by two-thirds over the next 10 years. The U.S. is to ask G-7 leaders meeting in Kananaskis next month to pay for the nuclear cleanup in Russia. The West did the same in Ukraine.

NATO, formed in 1949, is expanding while its Cold War nemesis Warsaw Pact died over a decade ago with the demise of the Soviet Union. President Bush told the Reichstag in Berlin last week that NATO's role in providing collective security is "as urgent as ever." NATO foreign ministers meeting in Reykjavik two weeks ago also backed increased spending on personnel and equipment for NATO so that it can move anywhere quickly.

There is a rush now to join NATO. Ten potential member countries have formed the Vilnius Group in order to coordinate their efforts to join the current 19 members of NATO. After the acceptance of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland into the membership in 1999, NATO leaders will launch the next round of enlargement talks at the upcoming summit in Prague on Nov. 12 and 22, 2002.

When asked why the rush and desire to join NATO, most aspiring membership countries can only point to the need to be part of the European and transatlantic equation and the new found threat of terrorism. But one draws a blank when asking, who is the enemy?

Membership in the European Union provides the kind of security that the countries wanting to join NATO are seeking. The newly-independent countries of the Baltics, central and southeastern Europe could benefit immensely from the economic and social programs offered by the EU membership. Most of the countries seeking NATO membership are also listing themselves for membership in the EU.

Perhaps it is difficult for the North American mind to comprehend the centuries-old ethnic hatreds, which have surfaced time and again in two World Wars and most recently in ethnic strife leading to ethnic cleansing in various parts of Europe.

President Bush has balanced his unilateralism of discarding Kyoto and imposing steel and lumber tariffs with promoting multilateralism by strengthening NATO, de-clawing Russia, and in so doing he will hopefully help make the world a more secure place.

NATO has a role to play in preventive diplomacy. And preventive diplomacy can sometime only be effective if one is carrying the proverbial big stick. In this case, NATO is well-poised to play that much-needed role in parts of the world from where conflicts could engulf and threaten the security of the whole world.

May 6th, 2002

Sensational CBC 60 Minutes story fuels stronger attacks on Canada's refugee and immigration policies, negative stereotype

The refugees and immigrants whose infusion into Canada fuelled decades of development are under attack by the Canadian Alliance in Parliament. The negative stereotyping generated by these attacks does not help in creating a tolerant and inclusive society.

There are about 12 million refugees on the move in almost every part of the world in search of protection against persecution and a better life. Some are fleeing their countries because of persecution on the basis of race, religion or political beliefs, and are known as convention refugees, while others in search of a better life, are 'economic' refugees.

The reference to convention refugees stems from the 1951 Convention, which covers rules governing definition and treatment of fundamental aspects of a refugee's life. There are 140 parties to the Convention, which was originally adopted to deal with the movement of populations in the aftermath of World War II in Europe and growing East-West political tensions. It does not cover economic migrants.

The fuel for attacks on Canadian refugee and immigration policies came as a result of a sensational CBS 60 Minutes program which attempted to portray Canada as a haven for terrorists and therefore a potential threat to the United States. Alas, a one Ahmed Ressam arrested for trying to cross the Canada-U.S. border does not make Canada a hot bed of terrorism. As Liberal MP Steve Mahoney told the House of Commons, "To trash Canada only fuels the view that immigration is bad. Immigration is what built this country and it will continue to do so."

The 60 Minutes program should have looked a little closer to home. If it had done so, it would have discovered that all 19 hijackers involved in the fateful Sept. 11 attacks were residing in the U.S. legally. Furthermore, while three had studied in Germany, none had lived or trained in Canada. And to the American public's horror, one of the hijacker's successfully processed immigration status by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) arrived three months after the incident.

The Alliance then turned its guns on the refugee system asking the government to refuse to accept asylum seekers from the United States since no one can comprehend a refugee claimant from a country promising life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

However, some of the asylum seekers who first land in the U.S. choose to make their way to Canada for various reasons. Often there are family links to those who may have already settled here. And language and culture are other factors that weigh in. Perhaps it is easier to gain access to the U.S. than Canada, given the geographic proximity of the country from where the refugees are originating or merely the ease of travel connections.

In a similar scenario unfolding across the Atlantic, a large number of asylum seekers are daily desperately trying to cross that Channel by whatever means, to go from France to England. This is frustrating the English people who also do not understand the desire of the asylum seekers not to continue to live in France but beat the track to Britain. Again, language, cultural practices, or family links could be the determining factors.

There are some 200 million people who cross the Canada-U.S. border every year. How does a border guard know until the person is on the Canadian side of the border that he or she plans to apply for asylum. And once on this side of the border, the Canadian government is obliged to hear the case of the asylum seeker and provide the necessary protection, which so many in Canada have enjoyed.

There is no doubt there is a problem with the refugee movement between Canada and the US. There is no agreement between the two countries to resolve the issue after almost 10 years of negotiations. At present, in the absence of any international agreement, the US has unilaterally decided not to take back any person who once leaves its territory to seek refuge in Canada. The U.S. insists on sending the person back to his or her country of origin. This can prove to be costly and cumbersome since many of the asylum seekers lack proper documentation and under international obligations cannot be sent back to the very country they fled for fear of prosecution.

Alliance MP Stockwell Day was right last Wednesday in the House to reprimand the government for staffing four out of five positions at Canadian embassies immigration offices overseas with locally-hired personnel. "While hiring locally is appropriate, the ultimate decision as to who is eligible to enter Canada must be left in the hands of Canadian citizens," according to Mr. Day.

And New Democrat MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis told the House the same day, "Government cuts and understaffing, not refugees, are responsible for backlogs and enforcement problems."

The debate over immigration and refugee determination in Canada is far from over. When last week's column rhetorically asked whether the xenophobic "Le Pen" phenomenon could happen in Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Denis Coderre, following questions from Canadian Alliance in the House last Monday, observed: "Maybe now Le Pen has a franchise in Canada."

Canadian foreign policy: on course but needs fine tuning! We're equally effective to help resolve conflicts in Central Africa

Canadian foreign policy: on course but needs fine tuning!
We're equally effective to help resolve conflicts in Central Africa