Last evening my wife and I attended a talk given by Robert Fisk, the renowned British journalist who has lived in and covered the Middle East for almost 40 years. The talk was quite dense, given the complexity of the issues and dynamics of that region, and I realized how little we understand about what is really going on there.
I did not take notes, but fortunately an interview with him in The Tyee covers some of his salient points, one of which is the sad devolution of Canada's international presence:
"I was so amazed that [Canada's Minister of National Defence and for Multiculturalism] Jason Kenney made the statement that some of the refugees could be terrorists. He was basing his argument on some story about someone in a camp talking about fighting Assad.
"When you go back and look at how Canadians reacted to the Vietnamese boat people, some were suggesting that some of them might be communists, as if that were a reason not to take them in. Kenney is playing an old card, that Muslims would be prone to terrorism while Christians won't be.
"Some pundits have argued that there are extremists in the refugee camps, and while we need to do something, we can't, because security. It's a bad card to play because it's immoral, and though it is immoral, it's a bad card to play because it will become reality. Someone will plant a bomb to make it look like it was the wrong thing to do to let refugees in.
"Merkel has stepped forward and done more to expunge moral guilt of any German leader since World War Two. She did what Obama should have done. She said: Bring me your huddled masses. The idea that we're going to go over and kill ISIS, Assad, the Yemen leadership -- to continue the bombing campaign -- is infantilism.
"We have to abandon the politics of Harper and Cameron. It might be the statesmanship of 1940, but it's not the statesmanship we need. I'm talking long-term, to plan for the next 50 years. Future generations don't matter to politicians. Harper had opportunities that he didn't even think about, let alone grasp. Canada's natural position in the world is to be a great moral power, that tries to put out fires, bring people together, and look out for the suffering and the poor. None of that applies to Harper."
There was much more to his talk, including his belief that ISIS, with its quite mechanical, passionless destruction of heritage artifacts (paintings, for example, are not slashed to pieces but put through shredders), is a weapon being used and funded by Saudi Arabia to destabilize the Shia forces in the Middle East. But that may be the topic of another post.
His views on ISIS are not a belief, Lorne, they're firmly anchored in fact. The recently retired head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, confirmed as much when he related a pre-retirement courtesy visit he received from Saudi prince Bandar bin Sultan. Prince Bandar didn't pull any punches. He told the Brit intelligence chief that his country and its Sunni allies were preparing to wage a war of extermination against Iran and the Shiite Muslims.
ReplyDeleteWhen America refused to invade Syria the Saudis were outraged. They vowed to raise, equip and train their own army to wage war against Assad. In short order up pops ISIS. Only, like the Saudi's previous pet monster, al Qaeda, ISIS went rogue and then the Saudis and Gulf princes, sheikhs and emirs turned to us to clean up their mess. We called for them to participate. Know what they did? They pledged to stop funding ISIS. And, guess what, not all of them have.
We think of ISIS as extremist, brutal but its radical Sunni beliefs and its free resort to grotesque punishments such as beheading are the mirror image of what goes on in Saudi Arabia. Consider them the equivalent of Saudi gang-bangers.
So what do we do? We sell $15-billion worth of Canadian-built light armoured vehicles to the Saudis. What are they going to do with them? Well, they're sure not using them to take on ISIS, that's for sure. Harper won't say although I'm sure he knows. Part of the deal requires him to tell no one, including the Canadian people.
We're enablers, puppets, in the opening skirmishes of an Islamic civil war, Sunni versus Shiite. The worst part is that, every place we go, we make a total mess of it. We never win, not ever.
Thanks for this excellent information, Mound. In fact, Fisk did talk about the fact that the ISIS beheadings echo the Saudi method of retribution. He also observed that the West should never get involved in the Middle East, as they only mess things up, and that Cameron, when the Saudi king died, had the British flag fly at half-mast.
DeleteThe Canadian response was equally nauseating: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/david-johnston-s-flight-to-pay-respects-to-saudi-king-cost-175k-1.3087084
Is there any way out of this morass, Mound?
Thanks for this excellent information, Mound. In fact, Fisk did talk about the fact that the ISIS beheadings echo the Saudi method of retribution. He also observed that the West should never get involved in the Middle East, as they only mess things up, and that Cameron, when the Saudi king died, had the British flag fly at half-mast.
DeleteThe Canadian response was equally nauseating: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/david-johnston-s-flight-to-pay-respects-to-saudi-king-cost-175k-1.3087084
Is there any way out of this morass, Mound?
You ask the million dollar question, Lorne. Just what is this 'morass'? Is it something unique to the Middle East or do its roots go deeper, closer to home? Is it the logical and foreseeable consequence of membership in America's collegial Foreign Legion? With the exception of the conquest of Iraq, America dives into some ultimately futile war and we dutifully throw in with them.
DeleteWe act as though the world's woes continued only for lack of soldiers or someone to throw enough 2,000 lb. bombs into the mud walled compounds.
One way out of this morass is to refuse to engage in wars we are either incapable of winning or lack the will to see to winning. Don't indulge in pointless wars you're bound to lose. There'll be plenty enough carnage without our contribution.
Let's go back to what we used to do best - peace keeping. There's glory enough in looking for those glimmers of possible peace and, occasionally, building something out of them. Of course you don't succeed every time and often fail repeatedly but consider how many 'victories' we've achieved from playing "whack a mole". None.
I completely concur, Mound. It seems that our current generation of politicians have no sense of historical realities, nor do they have any thoughts about posterity. As you observe, peacekeeping, which really is a long-term investment, may or may not yield positive results, and the ultimate fruits of those efforts may not be known for a long, long time.
DeleteAs Fisk observed in his talk, the kinds of planning that went into, for example, the creation of the United Nations, involved long-term thinking. Such is notably absent today. We react more than we lead, eh?
Lucky you Lorne. Fisk would be a really knowledgeable and interesting man to listen to.
ReplyDeleteHe seems indefatigable, Pamela. He would be a challenge for someone half his age to keep up with.
Delete