On Saturday I went to “An extraordinary day of ideas, debate and discussion focusing on Canada and the urgent challenges facing the international community today.” The title of the event was, Navigating a New World and it was a extraordinary sequence of Random House Canada writers speaking from Irshad Manji, RomÈo Dallaire to Llyoyd Axworthy. The title for the day came from Axworthy’s new book, but what does it really mean?
Irshad Manji was the first speaker. She is the author of The Trouble with Islam and called for a liberal reformation of Islam. She talked about how her book has been translated into Arabic and the PDFs posted to the web so that others can read it despite there being no willing publishers/distributors. The Internet she saw as a technology that allowed people some security from ideological control. She also talked about courage and how progressive and moderate muslims have to start talking out. She also talked about organizing a centre for leadership training to help develop progressive leadership. “Just as fast food is an illusion, so is fast freedom.”
The idea that Islam needs to undergo a reformation similar to Christianity in Europe bothers me vaguely. Islam has a different history that already includes fracturing into different sects, and the Christianity of many today doesn’t seem any less intrusive into state matters than Islam. I worry about prescribing a story of the West to Islam. Personally we should look to Turkey for a new Islam.
Linda McQuaig, who has just published It’s the Crude, Dude talked about how the consumption of oil is the central problem of this age and the probable reason for the Iraqi invasion. “If it (the war in Iraq) is about oil, then it is not about liberation and therefore is against international law.” Commenting on the US election she said, “There goes the theory that you can’t fool people all of the time.” Her most interesting point was that big oil is “luddite” in that it has organized to resist change to our habits of oil overconsumption. She also believes that global warming can’t be solved by individual choice, but will take collective action. In other words, as important as individual changes can be, we have to make major collective choices.
The most interesting speaker was RomÈo Dallaire who presented a coherent position on the post cold-war world and what Canada’s role could be. I doubt I can do justice to his argument, but here goes a paraphrase.
Peace-keeping was a cold-war response to keep apart groups that wanted to resolve their differences. Post cold-war conflicts are too complex for peace-keeping but take a new type of engagement, conflict-resolution.
Even though the situation has changed since the end of the cold-war we have no new ideas. We continue to try to adapt nation-state instruments to complex post-modern situations. What Canada can contribute are new ideas adapted to the new reality. Right now we are fiddling in niche roles that are part of larger strategies (like those of the US or Nato.)
The only viable institution to help bring real peace and justice is the UN. Single-country led coallitions do not have the transparency and they can’t be trusted because they usually act in self-interest. While the UN may have problems, it is the only international agent that can be transparent and trusted. Canada should contribute new ideas to it, even if it takes a hundred years to transform it into a viable agent.
The world and youth are screaming for leadership and new ideas. Canada could work with the middle powers (Japan and Germany) to develop a viable force capable of intervening on behalf of the UN. We should not count on hired forces from 3rd world countries to do the dirty work, they don’t have the tools or capability. This, of course, means that Canada would have to invest in defense to build up a force capable of “conflict-resolution”.
To deal with terrorism we have to deal with the rage against us and, while that may be in Middle-East now, it is Africa that will haunt us. We have pillaged Africa when it suited us and ignore it when it has no value.
As for the war in Iraq, Dallaire feels that the US is looking ahead to a confrontation with China and building to surround China. He also said that power lies in the threat of force, not in its use. You carry the big stick but should try not to use it. Once you use it, as the US has now in Iraq, you run the risk that others will cease to fear your force and will plan to confront it. This rings true to me. The insurgency in Iraq has shown that the mighty hyperpower can win a campaign and get lost in the streets. Any nation thinking to oppose the US is getting a wealth of information about how to do so and the first lesson unfortunately, is that you should get a few nukes.
Thomas Homer-Dixon talked about some of the themes in the Ingenuity Gap and his next book. His summary of the complex problems facing us was excellent, but again I found myself dissatisfied with the solution, which this time was “resilience”. His final examples of what we should do included things like get a wind-up battery as if we were facing the ecological equivalent of nuclear war and should just dig a shelter, stock up on food, and get the right radio. To be fair, talking to him after, he mentioned the need for greater simplicity in systems and more redundacy. Our systems have been made so efficient under optimal conditions that they are no longer resilient under adverse conditions like a power outage. Still, Dallaire and McQuaig seemed much better on complex solutions than Homer-Dixon who seems to end up with motherhood capacities like “ingenuity” and now “resilience”.
One thing he said that I think is right on, is that we have to immediately work to secure enriched uranium – the type that can be easily “weaponized”. He mentioned that experts place a high probability on there being a nuclear terrorist strike in the next decades. Given how terrorism depends partly on escalation for its effect, it seems to me inevitable that someone, to get the attention and reaction terrorism wants, will succeed at exploding a nuke in a populated area. If we aren’t willing to go after the rage, then we should at least remove as much enriched uranium around as we can.
Needless to say, even a small nuke going off in the US would have a devastating effect on Canada. The borders would close. Trade would come to a stop. Canada is especially vulnerable. It’s time we try to become part of the EU.
Naomi Klein who wrote No Logo gave an interesting, if poorly organized, talk around the US election (be glad it’s over) and Iraq. She talked about how the movement to unseat Bush in the US election distracted people from the issues. The Anyone But Bush movement put all other issues on hold. Likewise she challenged us to not be complacent and think we are Not as Bad as Bush. She made an interesting comment that the Settlers in the West Bank are, in effect, human weapons of occupation, though she did not go the next step and argue that they are therefore legitimate military targets as Israeli soldiers might be. Likewise she touched on the issue of the responsibility of US citizens for re-electing Bush. Bin Laden’s latest tape tells the US electorate that they will be held responsible. Klein pointed out that the electorate that re-elected Bush ironically voted for him for exactly the views Bin Laden would support – opposition to abortion, gay marriage and so on. But, extremists will take the re-election as an endorsement of the occupation of Iraq and all the abuses of the US abroad. We will see people outside the US beginning to blame citizens for the abuse, not just their government. At that point, like the Israeli settlers, US citizens will become viewed as legitimate targets. This raises an interesting question as to responsibility and the vote. Does voting for a leader make one partly responsible for his leadership?
The final speaker was LLoyd Axworthy whose latest book is Navigating a New World. Axworthy wandered around various subjects from the academy (he is now the President of the University of Winnipeg) to foriegn politics. He talked about the principle of the responsibility to protect, which is a principle that can help us decide when to intervene in another country or not. The US as the only superpower doesn’t want any rules or constraints – it will be up to Canada and other middle powers to insist on them and to refuse to collaborate otherwise. He believes that we have to move beyond 9/11 and discuss security in a way that makes sense to people around the world, not just those afraid in the US. To victims around the world, terrorism is a minor problem compared to other forms of violence, abuse, and starvation.
Comments are closed.