Image via WikipediaYou are now running Firefox 5.0
cinchThe easiest way to record and share audio on the web!
Forage Fish Forever
I am writing to express concern for what an industrial-scale fishing fleet is doing to forage fish populations. Atlantic sea herring, river herring including blue-backed herring and alewives, mackerel and shad populations are NOT doing well despite significant efforts to clean up and better our rivers and estuaries. Forage fish are food for whales and dolphins, as well as for tuna, haddock, striped bass and blue fish. Jeopardizing the foundations of many ocean food pyramids has enormous impacts to ocean and coastal ecosystems. A quality of life for all of us is in peril.
Sierra Express Media
- Sierra Leone Oil Refinery must be reopened~!
- World Vision introduces Gravity Water System in Kono
- Why blame Dr Bu-Buakei Jabbie, Dr Sama Banya and APC?
- GCLME countries seek regional policy on use of oil dispersants
- Graduation Night for Sierra Leone Nurses in Texas
- New coalition in the fight against drugs – local NGO leads the way
- Anti-Corruption Commission engages rural communities in the Western Area
- Sierra Leone Oil Refinery must be reopened~!
- New coalition in the fight against drugs – local NGO leads the way
- Indecent tussle for IMC top job
- As land squabble intensifies… Police side First Lady?
- Oil and food security for the Gulf of Guinea (guest commentary)
Saving Sierra Leone, at a Price
4 Feb 1999 – In its desperation, the Government of Sierra Leone hired Executive Outcomes, a South African mercenary army founded by apartheid-era South ...www.sandline.com/hotlinks/ny.html
Conflict in Sierra Leone - True Story of South African Mercenaries
Sierra Leone Civil War
The RUF took control of large swathes of territory in Eastern and Southern Sierra Leone rich in alluvial diamonds * The government's ineffective response to the RUF and the disruption in government diamond production precipitated a military coup d'état in April 1992 by the National Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC).
* Conflict minerals
British mercenaries find a new ferocity in Ivory Coast | World ...
22 Feb 2003 – In Sierra Leone the British mercenary company Sandline International broke a UN arms embargo, allegedly with British government approval. ...www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/22/westafrica.jamesastill
Security in prisons
- June 22, 2011 at 9:12 pm
- Too much secrecy in jails, Ontario ombudsman says Use of force covered up, according to report Lee Greenberg, Ottawa Citizen A spate of cover-ups in Ontario jails is raising red flags for the provincial ombudsman. André Marin says his office has received a number of complaints surrounding use-of-force incidents by guards where there is no corresponding report or where pages are missing from reports. “This is not limited to one or two institutions,” Marin said at a news conference Tuesday, during which he presented his annual report. “It appears to be something that’s happening out there. And it’s giving me a tremendous amount of concern.” Marin says jailhouse complaints to his office in the past have typically been about issues like “wilted lettuce” and “expired bread.” This past year a number of serious complaints were filed that pointed to a “troubling” pattern, Marin said. They include several episodes where guards did not file reports after using force on inmates. Those incidents were then covered up. At one jail, a log book page matching the date of the assault had disappeared. At another, the written report conflicted with video evidence. In a third case, investigators were told an exculpatory health report did not exist when they asked to view it. “We’re very close to launching a special investigation concerning this area,” Marin said. “Use of force used to be documented, it used to be investigated. And unfortunately we’ve found some serious lapses in the system.”
Brian Stewart: The new 'Harper doctrine' in foreign relations
Jun 16
Tuesday, Parliament took just one day to debate the bombing of Libya — an aerial campaign commanded by a Canadian general, no less — before voting an overwhelming 294-1 to extend the attacks for three more months.
One other bizarre aspect of this vote was that the sole opponent of continued bombing, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, was the one expressing the views that were probably closest to many in Canada's military. May complained that this extended bombing "gives a blank cheque to a mission that doesn't have an exit strategy" — the very same comment I have heard in senior military circles. myleftbigfoot2011/06/23 at 5:55 AM ETI agree with Stewart. Reading this article I thought about the Pearson years, where Canadian muscle was the muscle involved in speaking, in diplomacy, in the much tougher, more complex, more on the ground work of engaging face to face with opponents, personal negotiation being very much like hand to hand combat. The air strikes are a distant, more impersonal, almost game like, almost bloodless, form of combat. Cleaner, in a way than any face to face confrontation or negotiation. When we all know that air to ground fighting is ineffective, why are we doing this? If a strategy has no evidence of efficacy, why pursue it? What values are driving this forward? A belief in magic? Hurray for Elizabeth May! NDP: shame on you.By Brian Stewart, special to CBC News
Posted: Jun 16, 2011
In the space of a very few days this month Canada's foreign policy took on an unexpectedly muscular air. The first sign was the searing blast at NATO's abject weakness, delivered by retiring U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates. In it, he magnified the dressing down by lauding Canada as a glowing exception due to its "major contribution" to the bombing of Libya. You could easily imagine Canadian officials grinning in agreement as many share the same dim view of the European-based alliance. Then just two days later, a triumphant Stephen Harper gave a rousing speech at the Conservative's post-election convention in which he seemed to promise a more intense role for Canada abroad. Our new foreign policy would be strictly focused on what matters to us and to a few key allies, the prime minister pledged, outlining something approaching a Harper doctrine: "We know where our interests lie and who our friends are and we take strong, principled positions in our dealings with other nations, whether popular or not." Then, on Tuesday, Parliament took just one day to debate the bombing of Libya — an aerial campaign commanded by a Canadian general, no less — before voting an overwhelming 294-1 to extend the attacks for three more months.More red meat
The extension was an extraordinary triumph for Harper. It's doubtful any legislative body in the Western world would give its government such near unanimity in a vote involving war. Certainly not in the U.S. Congress or Britain's Parliament.
A weapons systems technician arms a CF-18 jet in Sicily prior to a bombing run over Libya. (Cpl. Marc-Andre Gaudreault/CF Combat Camera/Reuters) The NDP, as the new Official opposition, pushed for caveats and conditions, but in the end voted as solidly as the most red-meat Conservatives opposite to continue hammering Libya.
Even the normally critical Toronto Star remarked, rather limply, "With Canadian pilots flying scores of missions over Libya and a Canadian general leading the NATO operations, it would have been hard to say No."
Think about that for a moment. This view suggests that when Ottawa needs to ensure support for intervention abroad all it needs to do is act swiftly to dispatch combat forces before any debate ensues and try to get a Canadian in a position of command. Then Parliament will find it "hard to say No."
One other bizarre aspect of this vote was that the sole opponent of continued bombing, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, was the one expressing the views that were probably closest to many in Canada's military.
May complained that this extended bombing "gives a blank cheque to a mission that doesn't have an exit strategy" — the very same comment I have heard in senior military circles.
In fact, the former chief of the defence staff, retired general Rick Hillier has publicly warned that there is very little clarity regarding the mission in Libya and that "history has proved that air missions have never worked."
Another retired general, Lewis MacKenzie, who oversaw the protection of Sarajevo during the Balkan War in the 1990s, said much the same thing.
'Big Canada'
None of this takes away from the fact that Harper is displaying a new enthusiasm to act as a big player abroad — bombing Libya, adding a large training mission in Afghanistan, buying the latest fighter jets — which should delight the Big Canada enthusiasts out there. With this in mind, it is remarkable to think back just a few years and recall how little regard Canada used to have at the White House. In the most telling moment — the president's speech to Congress immediately following 9/11 — George W. Bush lauded scores of allies dear to the U.S. at the time, yet took pains not to even mention Canada. It was a stinging and unfair dismissal. But now, as more and more European countries scramble to downsize their defence forces and sell off military equipment, Canada's small but highly competent military appears to be gaining more favourable notice in the capital that matters. The timing may work in our favour, too. For Canada's apparent willingness to hasten ships, planes and even limited numbers of troops alongside its biggest ally also coincides with a period in which the U.S. is less likely to seek out any more grand foreign adventures. Harper may figure we'll get kudos for availability, while not having to answer any real emergency calls, at least for the time being.The problem at Foreign Affairs
If there is a new Harper Doctrine — and I'm not convinced there is — the weak spot is not military, but diplomatic. Here, we are on the skids.
Stephen Harper speaks at the Conservative convention in Ottawa in June 2011. A new Harper doctrine on foreign affairs? (Patrick Doyle/Reuters) The Conservative's uncritical support of Israel, for example, may ensure Harper strategic votes at home. But it is far less clear what influence this Canada-Israel bond will garner us around the world.
The Israeli government, free to trust Canada to remain uncritical, may well pay us little heed. At the same time, other nations in the area — or in the peace-seeking quartet of big powers — will regard our views as irrelevant.
Perhaps being relegated to the sidelines is precisely what Harper is hoping for here. Fewer problems from that vantage point.
Still, I cannot remember a time when our once vaunted diplomatic corps, once one of the world's best, has appeared more timid and more underappreciated by cabinet, not to mention under-strength and demoralized.
Any real attempt to promote Canada as a purposeful new force in the world will require a full-scale rebuilding of Foreign Affairs to get it back to the point where its views are listened to and its skills are deployed to the fullest.
A handful of CF-18 fighters and a frigate won't suffice.
That's why taking the measure of Harper's new foreign policy, if that's what it is, will have to await a better sense of the new foreign affairs minister, John Baird.
Harper's appointment of the dynamic, rough and tumble Baird to a position occupied of late by more tranquil figures of little clout seems heavy with meaning.
But what meaning exactly? Is Baird set to stand up loudly to revive Canadian diplomacy; or to bully it even further into the ground?
Drone Wars UK
The magical realism of body counts
article by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, co-editor of Pulsemedia.org, examining the reporting of civilian casualties from drone strikes. This article was first published by Al Jazeera. Muhammad Idrees Ahmad can be contacted at idrees@pulsemedia.org.
The US has come a long way since July 2001 when it rebuked the Israeli government for its policy of “targeted assassination”, which it said were really “extrajudicial killings”In September of that year, CIA director George Tenet confessed that it would be a “terrible mistake” for someone in his position to fire a weapon such as the predator drone. By 2009, such qualms were obsolete.
EU
UMA MUSICA BEM BRASILEIRA
Posts
at 5:55 AM ETI agree with Stewart. Reading this article I thought about the Pearson years, where Canadian muscle was the muscle involved in speaking, in diplomacy, in the much tougher, more complex, more on the ground work of engaging face to face with opponents, personal negotiation being very much like hand to hand combat. The air strikes are a distant, more impersonal, almost game like, almost bloodless, form of combat. Cleaner, in a way than any face to face confrontation or negotiation. When we all know that air to ground fighting is ineffective, why are we doing this? If a strategy has no evidence of efficacy, why pursue it? What values are driving this forward? A belief in magic? Hurray for Elizabeth May! NDP: shame on you. Rating1Agree with comment (1 people agree)Disagree with comment (0 people disagree)PolicyReport abuse (0)
at 11:22 AM ETWith a Canadian General in charge and Canadian jets dropping bombs I guess that clearly means the blood of the innocent civilians killed by those bombs in "collateral damage" is on our hands. Air campaigns win nothing so someone's boots have to hit the ground to affect the regime change in Libya which is the true goal of the mission. NATO of course is hoping it's puppets in the rebel forces will provide the warm bodies but that certainly remains to be seen. The fact that our parliament voted in favor with only one opposed is obcene.Rating2Agree with comment (4 people agree)Disagree with comment (2 people disagree)PolicyReport abuse (0)
at 11:18 AM ET"But it is far less clear what influence this Canada-Israel bond will garner us around the world."
It's not meant to. It's part of the principled stand Harper talks about:
"We know where our interests lie and who our friends are and we take strong, principled positions in our dealings with other nations, whether popular or not."Rating2Agree with comment (3 people agree)Disagree with comment (1 people disagree)PolicyReport abuse (0)
at 6:33 PM ETRome lost it in North Africa - but not before it was turned from a vast agricultural land into a desert.
You won't beat the natives here, because nobody else will live there -and we are forever reliant on their good graces as a bridge between the rich sub-saharan African (and all the oil etc) and the North (us).
Military is a short term solution, where diplomacy is long term entrenchment. i.e. -regarding violence: Beating a wife is a short term solution, but long term disaster... We are demonstrating our loss of longer term power. Big bark, little dog. It is better to keep ones power hidden than to display its weakness.
Sure diplomacy is much harder work. Who is expecting a free ride here?Rating6Agree with comment (9 people agree)Disagree with comment (3 people disagree)PolicyReport abuse (0)
at 3:54 PM ETLibya has nothing to do with a 'Harper doctrine' how stupid does Stewart think we are???
We are there because NATO voted us to be there. Canada has obligations to NATO. The choice is not ours and that is why no one voted against keeping our international obligations (save May, I assume she is the one against - bombs are no good for the environment).Rating-52Agree with comment (11 people agree)Disagree with comment (63 people disagree)Show 1 replyPolicyReport abuse (0)
at 3:08 PM ETActually Brian, this direction is not surprising at all. In fact, it's totally predictable. And it's not so much a Harper doctrine, or even a Canadian doctrine. It is exactly a Republican doctrine of "military first, last and always" foreign policy.
It's exactly the foreign policy that sent the US needlessly to Iraq, delayed the capture/kill of bin Laden by at least 5 years, led to thousands of American soldiers killed in Iraq (and tens of thousands wounded). And during this time, our soldiers, among others, get killed in Afghanistan.
And it's exactly the foreign policy Stephen Harper would have committed Canada to in 2003. So there's nothing surprising at all here.
Also, your analysis of Robert Gates' comments should be more accurate than what you suggest in your article. Unlike Stephen Harper, Robert Gates believes the Bush administration (for whom he worked) made a serious error in going to Iraq. He feels that had the Bush administration kept its focus only on Afghanistan, as Obama has, the mission there would already have ended years ago, and many fewer soldiers (including Canadians) would have been killed or wounded. His endorsement of Canada, therefore, has nothing to do with any Harper doctrine, but with the fact that the US needs Canada in those missions like Afghanistan. He also doesn't endorse Harper's disappearing act from international diplomacy and key decision-making bodies.
It's funny how the US so soundly criticized us in 2003 for failing to join them in Iraq, and now those same people (Gates included) praise us for making what turns out to be the correct decision.Rating48Agree with comment (50 people agree)Disagree with comment (2 people disagree)PolicyReport abuse (0)
at 2:51 PM ETI heard an interesting theory that Harpo was quick to send CF-18s to Libya because he was hoping that one would be lost due to mechanical failure and this could be used to bolster the Con claims that we need the F-35.Rating16Agree with comment (27 people agree)Disagree with comment (11 people disagree)PolicyReport abuse (0)
at 12:54 PM ET
I found it interesting that just at the time the conservatives were defending a blank cheque of billions of dollars for new fighter jets that we suddenly had to use our present CF18s on continuous missions. Dropping hundred thousand dollar bombs. It's like their parents said they can't get a new toy till they wear out the old ones.
Canada's diplomacy used to be based on respect for our position of fairness and equity. We were the US strong ally but we didn't send troops to Vietnam, we didn't cut diplomatic ties to Cuba, were instrumental in the creation of the UN declaration of Human Rights, and pioneered the concept of a Peace Keeping force in order to help parties stabilize a conflict and resolve it. It was rather like the stories of a Mountie going into a dangerous situation unarmed. Now we're more like the little guy with the big mouth standing behind the big guy.
I don't like the expeditionary aspect of our military posture right now. The new weapons systems particularly the jets aren't really that useful except for blowing the heck out of things at a very high cost. If it's peace keeping it's peace by eliminating the opposition. Would the world be a more dangerous place because we concentrated on things like being able to patrol our own coast and north and being able to meet major emergencies at home. The Japanese have just shown us what major resources are necessary for a major domestic emergency - to be able to deal with one of those requires a whole different equipment set than blowing up buried command and control centres. Frankly, I think just one less jet could make a big difference to my life if it were invested in a decent national child care program.
Haiti and Canada's role in the foreign occupation 1of7
The Honest Broker? Canada's Role in Haitian Development
Myths for Profit: Canada's Role in Industries of War and Peace)