FROLITICKS

So Canada wants to stop its small contribution to bombing missions against the Islamic State, formerly known by the acronym ISIS, in Syria. Sorties by the six Canadian jet fighters represented only 3 to 4 percent of total coalition sorties.  Instead of this token symbolic gesture, the Canadian government now wants to increase its humanitarian efforts in the region and its training and arming of Iraqi ground forces.  Meanwhile, coalition forces and the Russians continue to bomb the hell out of the country, either against ISIS or (in the case of the Russians) insurgent ground forces fighting the Assad regime. The bombings to date have even included hospitals and other civilian targets, either on purpose or by accident.  The theme seems to be that either one will save the Syrians or level what is left of that country’s infrastructure to do so — while killing and starving civilians who have not fled Syria like the hundreds of thousands of refugees before them.

The ruthless Russians are supporting Assad against insurgent forces, while the western-organized coalition supports the ground war against ISIS and the insurgent forces’ struggle against Assad. Talk about a crazy helter-skelter mix of military and political strategies.  The campaign against ISIS forces in Iraq is not much better. Canada has been primarily providing military assistance to the Kurdish forces, recognizing that the Kurds really want to take advantage of the situation to move eventually toward an independent Kurdish territory.

Iraq is still divided along sectarian lines. Shia militias are battling ISIS, but have also massacred Sunni civilians.  Iraq witnessed a sharp increase in civilian deaths following the fall of large swaths of territory to ISIS in the summer of 2014. Now despite a string of recent battlefield losses for ISIS, civilians in Iraq continue to die in the thousands at a “staggering” rate, according to a United Nations report released in January 2016.  In addition, Kurdish Peshmerga forces, or in some cases Yezidi militias and Kurdish armed groups from Syria and Turkey, are operating in co-ordination with the Peshmerga. They reportedly have forced tens of thousands of Arab civilians to flee their homes.  There are now talks of war crimes being committed by all sides.

President Obama’s late-coming promise to confront ISIS reflects U.S. reluctance to commit troops to foreign wars unless Americans, or American interests, are directly threatened. Much of this reluctance is also due to the tragic experiences of decade-long American military efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  As in Canada, after its involvement in Afghanistan, there isn’t much desire to once again become embroiled in either Iraq or Syria with boots on the ground.   In the end, I really believe that all these Iraqi and Syrian factions are going to have to decide their own futures, regardless of outside incursions and the humanitarian, political, economic and military consequences for the Middle East.

Excuse my cynicism, but have politics in Canada and the U.S. become the theatre of the absurd? There is a reason why political satire found in Saturday Night Live and CBC’s 22 Minutes has become so popular.  After all, one has two countries whose wealth and world status are well known.  Then one takes a closer look at the candidates for leadership in both countries.  In the U.S., you have the likes of Donald Trump, Canadian-born Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush for the Republicans; and Hillary Clinton (protégé to Bill Clinton) and Bernie Sanders for the Democrats. In Canada, we had relatively-young Justin Trudeau (son of formerly much-loved or much-hated Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau), former PM and control-freak Stephen Harper and dull-the-senses Thomas Mulcair.

We have to ask if these were the best candidates that political parties could offer, or the best that big money could buy? In the U.S. in particular, it seems that you almost have to be a multi-millionaire just to run for President, supported by so-called Super Pacs and all. Canadians, known for their frugality and timidity, having a cheaper brand of candidate seems to satisfy the general electorate.  Whatever the reasons, there does appear to be a shortage of interesting and less connected candidates.  Indeed, Canadian politics had become a lot duller than American politics, especially given our tendency toward making safer and calmer choices.

On the other hand, the current U.S. parties’ primaries have literally turned into a veritable circus — much to the delight of American late-night comedians. Trump hates everyone and everything (except money apparently), Cruz has a love-hate relationship with the Party’s ‘establishment’, and Jeb Bush likes to play with Barbie dolls.  Hillary Clinton wants to be the first female President with male hormone replacement.  Bernie Sanders actually believes that he could become the country’s first ‘socialist’ President before ice freezes over in hell.  Even Walt Disney couldn’t have dreamed up a better scenario than this — perhaps based on Snow White and the seven dwarfs. So, all bets are off.

Now that we have ‘selfie’ loving and endlessly hugging Trudeau in office in Canada, I can’t wait to see who the ‘greatest nation’ on earth elects as their leader. After all, we are the mouse that sleeps next to the elephant.  If Americans sneeze, Canadians catch a cold.  Yes, after the last ten years, maybe it’s time for change — but what kind of change?

The recent ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that the federal government discriminated against children on reserves in its funding of child welfare services, once again highlights this nation’s disgraceful treatment of its aboriginal peoples. This quasi-judicial body found that the federal government failed to provide First Nations children the same level of services that exist elsewhere. Child welfare was also among the central issues flagged in the recent report by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which spent six years delving into the odious residential school system that operated from the 1870s to 1996.

Native peoples suffer more not only from poverty, but also from health problems, suicides, substance abuse, unemployment, lack of adequate housing, polluted water sources, substandard schooling, high levels of violence especially against aboriginal women, etc., etc., etc. There exists a huge socioeconomic gap between indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples. The United Nations human development index rated Canada sixth-best place to live in the world. However, this shamefully doesn’t appear to apply to the quality of life of our indigenous peoples.

Other than simply apologizing for the residential school system implemented by past governments, the former Conservative government did little to resolve the problem of extensive native poverty. Instead, it attempted to blame the reserve bands for the mishandling of federal funding and lack of accountability.  While there have no doubt been concerns in the bookkeeping practices of some bands, given that there are hundreds of them, the attempt to pass on the blame to the victims of the Indian Act of 1876 was reprehensible.  Under the Act, we have a dysfunctional governance regime, which promotes permanent inter-generational inequality and misery along racial lines.  We need to reform our relationship with First Nations, giving them more responsibility and capability to run their own lives.  The days of ineffective institutional oversight are outdated and anachronistic.  Hopefully, the current federal government, along with the provinces and in consultation with native representatives, can finally come to grips with developing a viable national strategy to deal with tragedies attributed to native poverty in Canada.