The Day in Print

Leave a reply

Two interesting pieces out today:

Veronica Kitchen and Karthika Sasikumar published an op-ed in today’s Globe and Mail. Entitled Air India’s Lesson for Promoting Security at Home it discusses how human security needs not only to be championed abroad, but is a basic principle that should be used when designing security policy at home.

Also, Peter MacLeod sent me this interesting piece in the Hill Times about the (failed) Liberal Renewal Commission. As many of you know most of the Liberal Renewal Commission reports were never formally published or translated. Several of those on the commission released their reports independently after the fact. I’ve posted links to three of them here.

Citizens' Assemblies – In opposition to responsible government

2 Replies

Some of you may recall this great debate we had on the site over the merits of Citizens’ Assemblies. My friend, David Brock has gone and added fuel to the fire with an op-ed entitled “Ontario abdicates its duty on electoral reform” in Thursday’s Toronto Star.

David punches a number of holes into the Citizens’ Assembly process, but I think his ultimate critique drives to the heart of the matter – that even citizens’ assemblies cannot escape the problem of representation. Someone, somewhere, made choices about which groups should and shouldn’t be represented within the assembly. This, naturally, has an impact the outcome. Choices will be made that favour some over others.

Representative democracy is far from perfect, but it at least allows those choices to be debated openly. Citizens’ Assemblies, in contrast, are top-down, opaque processes with little oversight or self-correcting mechanisms. I’m still searching for the evidence to see how they produce better, more equitable or more ‘representative’ outcomes.

Government Sponsoring Anti-Abortion March?

25 Replies

So much going on right now – tons to share on the Mozilla debate, the APEX conference, and the government bans on Facebook – will be getting to it all next week. In the meantime, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this:

I was in Ottawa yesterday (May 10th) and ran headlong into the annual March for Life.

Politics around the issue aside (I’m pro-marching for what you believe in – whatever you believe) I was surprised to see that the big 30 foot long “March for Life” banners at the front of the march had the Government of Canada logo on them.

You, know, this logo:

Gov of Can logo

Is the government of Canada sponsoring anti-abortion groups? Normally you use this logo if you receive government funding. Not sure what the rules are around government funding political advocacy groups? Anybody know?

Alternatively, maybe the march’s organizing body just grabbed the logo and slapped it on its banners? Is this logo trademarked? Is this a trademark violation? Although I somehow suspect that no one at Justice is getting all that excited about it.

Either way, it is interesting…

Canadian Foreign Policy oriented Job Posting

5 Replies

I’ve recently been asked to sit on the advisory committee for Canada’s World. An emerging project that seeks to facilitate a national dialogue on Canadian Foreign Policy.

Shauna Sylvester, the founder and director has started the process of staffing up the project. Attached below is the notice. Interested parties should contact Shauna.

Job Posting – Online Community Facilitator and Editor

Term: 18 months
Rate: $55,000 to $60,000 based on experience
Location: Vancouver
Ideal Start date: June 11, 2007
Application deadline: May 23, 2007

Canada’s World, a project of the SFU Centre for Dialogue seeks a full-time On-Line Community Facilitator and Editor to join our national team. Canada’s World is a national citizens’ dialogue aimed at creating a new vision for Canadian international policy. Our secretariat offices are based in Vancouver and we work in collaboration with a series of academic and non-profit organizations across the country.

The On-line Community Facilitator and Editor plays a pivotal role in this collaborative initiative. S/he will report to the Director of Canada’s World and work closely with staff, interns, volunteers and advisory committee members in creating a virtual community where citizens can exchange ideas and learn about Canada’s place in the world.

The idea candidate will be an excellent writer, well-organized, and detail-oriented with a passion for and knowledge of international policy issues. S/he will be bilingual (French and English), enjoy working within a dynamic work environment and capable of analyzing complex discussions and distilling them in plain language communications. S/he will be experienced at facilitating on-line forums and blogs, enjoy editing and working with computers and social networking tools. S/he will possess a post-secondary degree in Arts, Social Sciences, Information Management or a related field, enjoy working in a face-paced dynamic environment and have the ability to think creatively.

Canada’s World is an equal opportunity employer. All interested applicants should submit their cover letter, resume and a 200 word response to the following question: What are some of the greatest challenges and opportunities facing Canada internationally in the next twenty years?

to: Shauna Sylvester shaunas@canadasworld.ca, Canada’s World Fellow, SFU Centre for Dialogue, 3303 – 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5K3

Job Description

The Online Community Facilitator/Editor is responsible for facilitating the virtual presence of Canada’s World. S/he reports to the Project Director and works with web design staff in ensuring that the on-line components of the initiative are developed and delivered to maximize citizen engagement. Specific duties include:

Communications and Marketing

  • Assisting staff in identifying appropriate modes of marketing the website
  • Inviting community members to use the site, assisting them with access and logistical issues
  • Responding to information requests from community members in a timely manner
  • Developing on-line tools to maximize social networking and outreach to existing and potential community members

Editing and Regulation

  • Overseeing the approval of content across the site and ensuring that quality content is approved and inappropriate content is declined
  • Consulting with appropriate stakeholders when editorial issues arise and addressing them in a sensitive manner
  • Bringing attention to and/or enforcing community norms, rules and procedures
  • Acting as the primary liaison with the web hosting organization, suppliers and licensing bodies

On-line Programming

  • Uploading content onto the site, creating groups and folders and updating web pages
  • Maintaining a daily blog which summarizes the key ideas from the days’ online deliberations
  • Facilitating a daily on-line forum based on the key themes from the citizens’ dialogues
  • Designing and monitoring on-line surveys and developing summary reports of their findings
  • Tracking and monitoring web usage to identify areas for strength and improvement

Planning, Administration, Reporting

  • Providing advice to the Director and web design team on strengthening the on-line dimensions of the initiative
  • Working and supporting interns and volunteers in web-related activities
  • Providing written reports for presentation to funders as necessary
  • Participating in evaluations of the on-line program
  • Participating and representing Canada’s World at external meetings as requested
  • Participate actively on the Canada’s World staff team and share in the administrative duties

1946: The year the justice system failed

4 Replies

In this previous post on my grandfather, Israel Halperin, I (briefly) talked about how he was arrested, charged and unsuccessfully prosecuted by the Canadian government for violating the Secrecies Act during the Gouzenko Affair.

What I didn’t share (because it was discussed in the obituary) was how he was held without charge for weeks by the RCMP and interrogated by judges who wanted to use these interviews to build a case against him. This clear violation of Habeas Corpus – in addition to the above he was also held without charge and was denied access to a lawyer – is another cautionary about how the Canadian government has a history of placing its citizens in legal limbo.

Although the trial against him collapsed it was almost certainly a defining moment in his life, sparking his work as a human rights activist. Interestingly, thanks to my uncle and the research of Sandra Martin, I have the text of the letter my grandfather wrote (via his wife) to John Bracken, the Progressive Conservative Party leader of the time. The letter, which was read in the House of Commons in 1946, describes his illegal incarceration and pleads the opposition leader to help secure his release, or give him an opportunity to face his accusers.

For those who believe that Arar was an unfortunate blip in Canada’s history, Israel Halperin’s letter offers a powerful counterpoint.

For those uninterested in PDF’s here is the letter’s text:

Dear Mr. Bracken,

Although I am not a member of your political party, I feel sure that the matter about which I am writing to you will have your most serious consideration.

Since the 15th day of February 1946, I have been held prisoner by the RCMP at their barracks in Rockcliff, Ontario by an order signed by the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Louis St. Laurent.

It may sound fantastic but I have to tell you that no charges have been laid against me and I was given to understand that my status was simply that of ‘prisoner,’ held at the pleasure of the Minister of Justice, for an indefinite period of time and with absolutely no civil or legal rights other than those specifically granted by the Minister of Justice. I still do not know which rights, if any, the Minister of Justice is granted to me.

For the past five weeks I have been held in solitary imprisonment; denied access to legal counsel and newspapers: in short, cut off from the outside world.

I have written twice to the Minister of Justice in protest against this Bastille-like imprisonment. His replies referred to some Royal commission, but made no change in the incredible situation which I find myself. They have, in effect, merely confirm that the Minister of Justice is fully aware of the conditions of my imprisonment.

If I am accused of crime or misconduct, I deny the charge. I cannot know what accusation or slander have been presented to the public by the Department of Justice, either directly or through the mouths of others. But I have the certain knowledge that there cannot be a shred of true evidence for what is completely false.

This imprisonment is a terrible injustice to me and I charge the Minister of Justice with using his authority in a way which sets a dangerous precedent, one which should alarm every Canadian citizen.

I appeal to you to raise your voice on this matter and I beg you to read this letter in the House.

If you are interested in who I am, I will tell you that I am a native-born Canadian whose occupation is that a professor of mathematics in Queens University, Kingston, Ont. I come from a family whose concern for our country was sufficient to put two sons in uniform. One of them is writing this letter; the other is at the bottom of the ocean.

Since my letters are intercepted and I am never told whether they are sent on, I would be grateful if you would trouble to acknowledge this letter, if you receive it.

Yours very sincerely,

(sgd) Israel Halperin

Negotiating with the Enemy: the case of Iran, Syria and the United States

Leave a reply

After my friend Taylor published this post about the US-Syrian-Iranian negotiation he asked me how would I structure the talks and what would be the most significant obstacle.

Back in the 1970’s Roger Fisher used a method called the one-text that helped create the document that became the basis for the 1978 Sinai Agreement between Israel and Egypt. The one-text process is a variation of mediation that is simple, but powerful. Clinton also proposed using the process in 2000 with the Israeli’s and Palestinians.

The one-text process feels appropriate because it works best in multi-party negotiations where trust is low. Iranian-Syrian-American relations have deteriorated to such an extent that any conversation is unlikely to be open, honest, or even civil. In short, they are unlikely to be productive. The basis for an agreement, and even just communicating, will be hard to establish. Think that diplomacy is above that? Then why did Bush feel the need to confirm that if Condi ran into her Iranian counterpart, she would be civil?

Indeed, this is the main issue: can the parties trust each other? There are enormous opportunities for joint gain… but the domestic risks for each of the actors are also enormous. This is the tragedy of the situation. Each actor (Syria, Iran and the US) is now hostage to the negative perceptions their domestic populations have of one another, negative perceptions their respective elites helped create, foster and nurture. How can Iran, America or Syria cut a deal with a country that have for 20 years been labeled as a mortal enemy? This would be, at best, politically problematic in the US and potentially destabilizing for the Syrian and Iranian governments.

Consequently any functional solution cannot threaten (in the short and medium term) the legitimacy of any of the actors domestic standing. This probably means that any negotiated solution will have to be discrete. The parties may come to agreement, but they cannot be seen coming to an agreement.

A back channel one-text thus becomes the obvious choice. The starting point being that all the parties recognize the opportunity cooperating presents, but also recognizing they can’t be seen working together. Of course, the other challenge is that this means there are huge risks for cooperating, but the costs of defection (particularly if the interest calculus shifts) are low. The negotiators would have to find a way to make the costs of defection feel relatively high versus the costs of cooperation. A one-text process that explores their interests may reveal such an outcome, but if I had an answer to that quandary offhand I’d probably be in an air conditioned room in Turkey right now, working with State Department officials.

Ironically, the main obstacle to using the one-text process would likely be a reluctance on the part of the United States to submit itself to a mediated process.  I suspect that although the Americans feel it is a good enough process for everybody else, the world’s only superpower will never enter into mediation.

Research on the 1960 Kingston Conference… any leads?

8 Replies

I recently read John Beal’s 1964 book “The Pearson Phenomenon” I found this little gem in the library while looking for books that would have something to say about to Kingston conference that the liberal party held the week of September 6, 1960.

The book is interesting for two reasons. The first is that it is written by an American. (and I thought Americans didn’t care about Canadian politics, especially in 1960?) The second is that it was written in 1964, while Pearson was in office and so reflects the optimism and challenges of that time.

What drew me to the book was what it had to say about the Kingston conference – for which it had a reasonable blow-by-blow account, some transcripts and interviews with key player. Not a ton of material, but at least 15-20 pages worth.

I’ve been struck by how little has been written about the Kingston conference. For those who are also looking for accounts of the event, this book has some of the play-by-play but will almost certainly leave you wanting. If you found a good account of the conference, both of its organization and/or a description of the events, please let me know by e-mailing me or posting a comment. Would appreciate any thoughts ot help…

Thank you for your public service stories

4 Replies

I just wanted to say thank you to the many of you who sent me your public service stories. I’ve been putting the finishing touches on my APEX presentation and your thoughts, advice and anecdotes have been helpful. If you’ve been holding back and opted not to send me something I’d still be interested in hearing from you.

Also, just a little housekeeping. Some of you may have noticed that I’ve put a tag cloud in the sidebar. I’m pretty psyched about this development and hope it will enable people to zero in on topics of interest more easily. FYI, I’ve also added a few new books to the book review section, although the readings been a little on the heavy side.

Stephen Clarkson's Big Red Machine

5 Replies

Not sure I’ll ever get around to writing a full review of this book but, I thought I’d share these thoughts.

Stephen Clarkson’s writes from an old school left perspective. At its best, this perspective can have some significant benefits, as it teases out certain types of conflicts that can be profoundly important. However, in this regard it is also a fairly blunt instrument. By focusing on certain data points and trends it can be helpful in analysing the past, but it locks one into the prism that prevents you from seeing the opportunity of future change (the very problem with this book – as it seems to predict an endless future of liberal victories). At its worst however, it is barely even an instrument of analysis. For example, Uncle Sam and Us : Globalization, Neoconservatism, and the Canadian State was very long on opinion and quite short on analysis. Moreover, data was carefully selected that would confirm his thesis, while contradictory data was summarily ignored.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But what interests me are perspectives that spark new insights and new debate. With Clarkson, one knows his conclusions before reading the book and as a result, I suspect the readership generally self-selects itself. Those who already agree with Clarkson pick up his books, those who don’t, don’t.

Big Red Machine is in keeping with this approach and so has its own hard to swallow statements, like this one of page 5:

“Surprisingly for a party that ultimately help build and manage the capitalist state, it (the Liberal Party) emerged to express the grievances and demands for social justice and economic freedom of those oppressed by the oligarchic power structure that prevailed in the British North American colonies drain the first half of the 19th century.”

Why are social justice and economic freedom incompatible with a capitalist state? From what I have seen social justice is no more at odds with capitalism then it is with every political economic system, be it authoritarian, communist, socialist, nationalist, etc… The real question is how do we manage our political economy to maximize its benefits and minimize social injustice. This was the goal of the progressive movement for much of the 20th century: applying the minimum rule set necessary to enable capitalism to sustain itself and ensure its compatibility with our democratic and social justice values.

In sum, Big Red Machine is an okay book (mind you, having never written a book myself I still have enourmous respect for those who’ve written one, not to mention five or more). But if you’ve must prioritize your time, I might skip it.

To be fair, I’m also bummed that this book displaced Free Culture on my “recently read” list. Now there’s a book that should be mandatory reading!