FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Oct 22

The Power of the American Military Industrial Complex Continues to Grow

by bcurry

Lester B. Pearson, a former Canadian Prime Minister, was quoted in 1955: “The grim fact is that we prepare for war like precocious giants, and for peace like retarded pygmies.”  As you may know or not know, as a diplomat Pearson was largely responsible for encouraging the formation of the League of Nations after World War II, which in turn became the United Nations.

Former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in 1953: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”  As a former general during World War II, Eisenhower clearly understood the power of the military industrial complex in the States, a power that has continued to grow from this day forward.

The U.S. is the world’s biggest arms exporter.  As of last year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the U.S. controlled an estimated 45 percent of the world’s weapons exports.  This is nearly five times more than any other nation and its highest level since the years immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union.  That is up from 30 percent a decade ago.

The current conflict between Israel and Hamas is just the latest impetus behind a boom in international arms sales that is bolstering profits and weapons-making capacity among American suppliers, especially with respect to Israel’s military.  The U.S. already provides Israel with more than $3 billion in military assistance every year, and Congress is now apparently being asked to increase funding to Israel to the tune of $10 billion in emergency aid due to the conflict.

Even before Israel responded to the deadly Hamas attack, the combination of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the perception of a rising threat from China was spurring a global rush to purchase fighter planes, missiles, tanks, artillery, munitions and other lethal equipment.  Other countries such as Turkey and South Korea are also increasing their military equipment exports, giving purchasers more options at a time when production shortfalls in the U.S. mean it can take years for orders to be filled.  During the Biden administration countries such as Poland, Saudi Arabia, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Australia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea and Japan have signed military equipment deals with the U.S.  Even some small Pacific island nations have done the same. Taiwan alone has a backlog of American weapons orders worth as much as $19 billion.  Canada recently signed an agreement with Lockheed, the world’s largest military contractor, to purchase F-35 fighter jets worth billions of dollars.

Economically, there is little doubt that foreign-based wars can stimulate certain sectors of a country’s economy.  One only has to recall the impact of the Vietnam and Iraq wars to witness the role of American military hardware providers who benefited from the billions of dollars spent in support of American actions in both countries.  Unfortunately, thousands of American lives were loss and thousands more were injured in these two nebulous conflicts.  Military equipment is being sold to all sorts of regimes, several non-democratic, simply to garner support for American foreign policy initiatives in their respective region.

Sadly, there are those who note that the Pentagon and the State Department are continuing to work to find ways to accelerate approval of foreign military sales to keep up with the rising global demand.  The industry has declared that the main bottleneck remains manufacturing capacity, requiring an industrial base capable of meeting these requirements.  Yes, there will always be those that argue if the U.S. industry doesn’t fulfill such perceived needs, then other countries will simply step in to do so.  Regrettably, this appears to be a winnable argument in Congress, with the military industrial complex taking full advantage at the expense of American taxpayers since it is often combined with foreign aid and foreign policy.

Arms Trade Canada Defence Economy Foreign Policy Military Prowess The Middle East Ukraine US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Oct 15

Overriding Canadian Human Rights Legislation Via Use of Notwithstanding Clause 

by bcurry

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the revised Constitution of Canada created back in 1982.  It is commonly known as the “notwithstanding clause”, sometimes referred to as the override power and was included at the time so as to have the majority of provinces agree to the new constitution.  The clause allows Canada’s Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override certain sections of the Charter when introducing new legislation.  It is unique among the constitutions of democratic countries and gives federal and provincial governments the ability to ignore most of the constitutional rights of Canadians other than the right to vote, the seating of legislatures and the House of Commons, mobility rights and language rights.  One extraordinary provision is that no explanation for such a move is required.  The U.S, Constitution gives no such powers to the states, but it does authorize Congress to remove jurisdiction from the federal courts.  However, not since World War II has Congress mustered the requisite majority to do so.

For much of our new constitution’s history, it was rarely used by provinces (the federal government has never invoked it) and was politically regarded as an option of last resort.  However, the notwithstanding clause has since been used by Alberta in 2000, and Quebec in 2001 and 2005.  In addition, most Canadian provinces, including Quebec and Alberta, have their own human rights Act, which protects people in a province from discrimination in certain areas, such as employment, accommodation, and access to services, based on specified grounds (‘protected characteristics’).  Recently in 2022, Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford of Ontario threatened to invoke the clause to take the right to strike from teachers but subsequently abandoned his plan due to political pressures and the threat of future court challenges.

More recently, invocation of the notwithstanding clause by provinces has to do with the introduction of so-called “parental rights” legislation, similar to that found in Florida and some southern U.S. states’.  Such laws primarily govern the use the preferred names and genders of schoolchildren.  In June of this year, the premier of New Brunswick, Blaine Higgs, introduced legislation which requires teachers to get the permission of a child’s parents if the child is under the age of 16.  Now the issue has surfaced again in Saskatchewan.  Following the lead of Mr. Higgs, Premier Scott Moe recently recalled his province’s legislature to introduce a similar bill.  If passed, it will mandate parents’ consent for a number of things including the use by any pupil under 16 of a new gender-related preferred name or gender identity at school.

One expert observer noted that provinces tend to use the notwithstanding clause to feed their base the idea that we’ve gone too far in human rights and that the courts have been leading us in the wrong way.  The belief is that elected officials need to capture back their power.  It’s also suggested that its use has resulted in more “wedge politics.”  Remember that introducing such legislation will take away the individual rights of those directly affected, such as in the above cases involving the rights of a child.  Psychiatrists and social workers have noted that there are potential harmful consequences of forcing teachers to contact parents regarding such matters, especially where the child may fear a hostile reaction by their parents to gender-related matters.  Where once before a child could turn in confidence to a teacher or school counsellor for information and assistance, the child may now be much more hesitant to do so.  The detrimental result may be the potential emergence of social and mental health issues.

It has been suggested that in some cases the courts might ultimately end the ability of premiers and prime ministers to preemptively set the constitution aside when it comes to human rights legislation.  This was the most recent case in Ontario over the right to strike by teachers.  Never-the-less, the concern over the use of the Charter’s withstanding clause by provinces should remain a serious concern among Canadians.  After all, who’s next to have their individual rights taken away by a government?  Where does it all end?  The continuing use of this provision will ultimately water down those protections afforded to us under both federal and provincial human rights laws.

Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms Civil Rights Quebec's Bill 21 US

Leave a comment »
Oct 6

Speakers of U.S. House of Representatives and Canada’s House of Commons Resign

by bcurry

Two interesting events happened in the last couple of weeks.  Both speakers of a Congressional and a Parliamentary body were forced to resign in unprecedented ways. 

On September 26th, Anthony Rota stepped down as House of Commons Speaker after inviting a former Ukrainian soldier who fought in a Nazi division to Canada’s Parliament during the recent visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy who delivered an address in the House of Commons.  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made it clear that the Speaker’s mistake was deeply embarrassing for the House, Canada and the Ukraine.  Rota, a Liberal Party Member of Parliament, was pressured by his party and members of the opposition to immediately resign, something very rare in Canada’s parliamentary history.

In the U.S., the House of Representatives voted on October 3rd to oust Kevin McCarthy, a, a vivid rebuke of his leadership and an escalation of the civil strife within the Republican Party.  The so-called band of eight Republicans who rejected McCarthy, most of whom are Republican Party member, as Speaker of the House.  It was the first such removal in American history members of the hard-right Freedom Caucus, were opposed by 210 of their fellow GOP representatives, all of whom voted to keep the Speaker in place.  McCarthy had aligned with the Democrats in the House to pass legislation allowing the government to continue operating until next November, thus preventing an imminent shutdown of federal government services and much of its employee compensation.  What is particularly disconcerting is the current provision which allows any one Representative to call a vote in order to replace a sitting Speaker, as was done in this case by Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida.

In the case of the Canadian Parliament, the Speaker’s resignation was unfortunate but was quickly resolved through the quick selection and appointment this week by House members of a new Speaker, one Greg Fergus who became Canada’s first Black Canadian Speaker of the House of Commons.  His independent role as Speaker, although he is a Liberal Party Member of Parliament, is to maintain order in the House and direct the daily operations of his office.

On the other hand, the House of Representatives has yet to select a new Speaker from the majority Republican Party.  The Speaker’s removal has only deepened the body’s dysfunction, leaving the House rudderless so-to-speak, and with no clear path to effective leadership.  Although a government shutdown was narrowly avoided over the past weekend, another looms next month.  Future assistance to Ukraine as it fends off a Russian invasion is also at stake.  McCarthy has declared that he will not run again for the position and has not endorsed a would-be successor, leaving Republicans to scramble to find a viable candidate.  There are a lot of concerns among experts about the actions of the fringe elements of both parties, and their potential negative impact on the House functioning and the possibility for compromise agreements as to budgets and the functioning of the state.  They have pointed to the troubled tenures of previous Republican speakers of the House such as John A. Boehner and Paul D. Ryan, both of whom struggled with stiff resistance from their right flank.  Indeed, a fundamental role of the House Speaker is to attempt to pursue conciliatory measures between the two parties through negotiations and on-going discussions.  Unfortunately, it appears that the parties themselves have grown weaker because they are increasingly controlled by those on the fringes, as exemplified in this case.  Moderates in both parties have expressed their concerns, but apparently to no avail. 

The increasing failure of Congress to function in an orderly fashion and to represent the interests of all Americans has placed democracy in a dangerous situation.  The on-going haphazard saga of the annual Congressional budgetary review and votes is clearly unworkable under these circumstances.  The sooner that the House can select a new Speaker, the sooner the House can hopefully get back to democratic governance.  Let’s hope for the sake of all Americans and democracy that this will happen in a quick and sensible manner!

Canada Federal Government Federal Government Republican Party US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Oct 2

Let’s Go To Live On The Moon or Mars.  Why Don’t We?

by bcurry

Given the progression and severe consequences of climate change over the last decade in particular, there are some scientists who believe that the Earth could become unliveable before the end of this century.  As of today, the Earth’s total population is estimated at around 8.1 billion people.  For whatever reason, there are those who are already talking about and planning for the possible colonization of the Moon or Mars in the near future.

Indeed, one company is looking to having people living on the Moon as early as 2040.  Currently, flights to the Moon by several countries, including India, Russia and China have taken place.  Apparently, NASA’s planned Artemis missions will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon in November 2024, using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before.  Artemis will collaborate with commercial and international partners and establish the first long-term presence on the Moon.  Then, they will use what they learn on and around the Moon to take the next giant leap: sending the first astronauts to Mars.  They plan to build an Artemis Base Camp on the surface and the Gateway in lunar orbit.  These elements will allow our robots and astronauts to explore more and conduct more science than ever before.  NASA will return to the Moon robotically beginning next year, send astronauts to the surface within four years, and build a long-term presence on the Moon by the end of the decade.

A raft of commercial lunar missions are taking off in 2023.  The first lander is set to touch down this month, signalling a new era for Moon science and exploration.  NASA will blast a 3-D printer up to the Moon and then build structures, layer by additive layer, out of a specialized lunar concrete created from the rock chips, mineral fragments and dust that sits on the top layer of the moon’s cratered surface and billows in poisonous clouds whenever disturbed.  The Moon shot of a plan has been made possible through new technology and partnerships with universities and private companies.  For example, the School of Architecture at Texas A&M University is working closely with NASA to develop a construction system that can be operated by robots in space.  Some of the 3-D technology involved has already been used successfully to build homes on Earth.  However, doing the same in space is a much more difficult endeavour.  NASA is also working with a handful of universities and private companies to create prototypes for space furniture and interior design.

In addition, from a commercial point of view, there are mining companies interested in potential sources of minerals on the moon.  The moon represents a potentially significant cache of untapped resources, and several nations will undoubtedly be interested in a stake.  India last month landed a spacecraft on the Moon, earning the distinction of the first nation to ever land near the southern polar region, where the most precious of resources — water — is believed to be lying in wait.

The next destination of course would be Mars, already having been explored by robotic surface vehicles.  The Moon is a practical spot for a layover, as NASA believes that the water on the lunar surface could be converted to rocket fuel for a future trip to Mars.  There have already been efforts to vet potential persons interested in helping to colonnade the red planet.  Another company would like to build and sell condos on Mars — an unlikely scenario.  I wonder how much those would cost!

There are those that would argue that we should first apply all of our scientific and technological resources to solving the current environmental problems on earth.  There is no doubt that putting humans on the Moon or on Mars is a very costly endeavour.  The fact is that it will take decades to accomplish what countries want to do in space.  For those of the billions of us left on planet Earth, we will just have to wait and endure. 

Uncategorized

Leave a comment »
Blog at WordPress.com.