tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28558325893722000112024-03-27T16:53:16.009-07:00The Sour GrapevineEducation is everything. Everything is education.Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.comBlogger154125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-61556731976187719252023-05-26T09:39:00.007-07:002023-06-25T06:29:53.332-07:00"Three Days of the Condor" and the Tenth Anniversary of "The Sour Grapevine"<h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Sharing Intelligence </span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">I'm still obsessing over "<a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2023/05/on-sharing-intelligence.html" target="_blank">sharing intelligence</a>." May 15th was the tenth anniversary of this blog. I wrote the <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2013/05/time-to-blow-whistle.html" target="_blank">first post 15 May 2013</a>. My original intention was to create a platform for whistleblowers, a space for all those insights and complaints about university education which circulated behind closed doors. That collective participation never happened, and the project became the one-man band it is today. Rereading my first post I see my concerns about "education" haven't changed. Over time, the blog has strayed from language, literature and the university per se, into those questions I have found "<a href="https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-II.html" target="_blank">curiouser and curiouser</a>" like money and politics.</span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Three Days of the Condor</span></i> <br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">One of my favourite spy flicks, <i>Three Days of the Condor</i>, is approaching its 50th anniversary. On this the tenth anniversary of The Sour Grapevine, I find myself reflecting on the naive optimism--my naive optimism--in interpreting the ending of <i>Three Days of the Condor</i>. Here's the ending of the film:</span></p><p class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vZNnDiDSUiI" width="320" youtube-src-id="vZNnDiDSUiI"></iframe> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">On "Changing the World" <br /></span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Condor (played by Robert Redford), a CIA analyst, has discovered a rogue CIA operation to invade the Middle East. To protect the secrecy of the plan, the CIA hires a contractor to assassinate Condor and his colleagues. Might sound farfetched but, then again, compared to the invasion of Iraq, it's small potatoes and somewhat more rational. What catches my attention today is Condor's (and my) only slightly hesitant conviction that the <i>New York Times</i> would publish his story. In 1975, I thought it was obvious that they would publish. Today? Not a chance in hell. Condor's (and my) other assumption was that publication of the story would change the world. "Change the world" is what we tell kids these days, right around the time they are becoming suspicious about Santa Claus. The last fifty years of humanity (as opposed to technology and physics) prove that stasis and apathy always prevail. I find myself submitting to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY" target="_blank">Sabine Hossenfelder's claim that "free will is incompatible with the laws of physics."</a></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUHGB0oDpbMbQcf3N4naUQO4prRsJ3xXznY-FbhjxjCpB2Zr5ShWYWnYUe_ZyB-cibcg2V3Ha3VXtttQIx1M8SMH5fwdzTqf-vxodmFVeXyUmY4I1zGttonXVCvrhmZna_RbSJhZBGbZP111ElWAWzJivqtB1r5RVGCMxBnJWR1-gYIv1zrACkscD6nTcg/s815/Screen%20Shot%202023-06-25%20at%209.20.55%20AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="815" data-original-width="707" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUHGB0oDpbMbQcf3N4naUQO4prRsJ3xXznY-FbhjxjCpB2Zr5ShWYWnYUe_ZyB-cibcg2V3Ha3VXtttQIx1M8SMH5fwdzTqf-vxodmFVeXyUmY4I1zGttonXVCvrhmZna_RbSJhZBGbZP111ElWAWzJivqtB1r5RVGCMxBnJWR1-gYIv1zrACkscD6nTcg/w348-h400/Screen%20Shot%202023-06-25%20at%209.20.55%20AM.png" width="348" /></a></div></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></h3><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">On Whistleblowers</span></h3><p class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Despite our romantic convictions that righteous individuals taking on the system are the heroes of modern times, whistleblowers, in general, do not fare well. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Darby" target="_blank">Joe Darby</a> blew the whistle on the torture and other crimes being committed by the US in Abu Ghraib prison. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden" target="_blank">Edward Snowden</a> revealed that the USA was systematically spying on American citizens with a program called PRISM. <span><a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/united-states-of-secrets/the-frontline-interview-william-binney/" target="_blank">William Binney</a>, a precursor of Snowden, created </span><span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinThread" target="_blank">ThinThread,</a> and revealed that the NSA was fraudulently wasting billions on </span><span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project" target="_blank">Trailblazer</a> and, at the same time, ignoring the Constitution by collecting massive amounts of data on US citizens. </span><span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Gun" target="_blank">Katharine Gun</a> revealed that the US was asking British intelligence to help blackmail UN diplomats into voting in favour of the invasion of Iraq. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb" target="_blank">Gary Webb</a> exposed that the CIA was allowing the importation of cocaine into the US in order to provide funding for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras" target="_blank">Contras</a> in Nicaragua. None of these whistleblowers have done well from the good they tried to do.<br /></span></span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Blogging as a retirement hobby<br /></span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">I have no right to expect this blog to be influential. I have always declared it "a hobby" and, as such, no more compelling for an audience than toy trains or a stamp collection. Nonetheless, it is impossible to write a blog for ten years and not wonder what, if any, effect it might be having. As a professor, I allowed myself the immodest belief that I had a modest effect on my students' thinking. The blog allowed me to continue at least the illusion of this the most satisfying aspect of academia.</span><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Metadata </span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Influence online in social media is measured in metadata: how many views, likes, comments, shares, followers, subscribers, etc. Starting out I never imagine that this was how I might measure success. I imagined each of my posts having a long shelf life, potentially being quoted by an avid reader from far afield even after I'm gone. But that's not how the world rolls these days. So here's my metadata: Google tells me that my blog has been viewed 753,405 times. I have written 204 posts. I have published 150 posts, the rest are unpublished drafts and stubs.</span><br /></p><h3><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Most Viewed</span></h3><p class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;">My most viewed post is <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2019/07/canadian-politicians-were-caught-like.html" target="_blank"><span>Canadian Politicians
Were Caught Like Deer in the Headlights, but Why Are Canadian
Journalists Censuring any Discussion of the Merits of Meng's Case?</span></a><span> (with 6,490 views). It's not one of my better-written posts. It's not even one of my better posts on the <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/search?q=meng" target="_blank">Meng extradition case</a>. However, in this most-viewed post, I criticized the <i>Global </i>journalist David Akin and he had the grace to share the post with his readers. Additionally, Google sends me a report each month telling me what keywords brought readers to my blog and, apparently, some people end up on this post searching the fairly common name "Richard Donoghue." Finally, with some reluctance, I must reveal that a substantial number of my readers (47,500 views all total) come from China. <br /></span></span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Least Viewed</span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">My least popular post was <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2019/05/if-men-could-get-pregnant-abortion.html" target="_blank">If Men Could Get Pregnant . . . </a>with 39 views, and I did quite a bit of research for that post. There might be a message in these numbers that I do better when I stick to my lane--education, language and literature. The message isn't clear, but it doesn't matter. Only an academic in my field would understand the elating freedom of being allowed to write what you really think. I have managed to stay within the bounds of "education"; that is, adding something new to what is already known. I also believe that "learning" frequently requires "unlearning." The word "narrative" comes from the core of my field. Frequently, the work of the blog has been a <a href="https://www.learningforjustice.org/classroom-resources/teaching-strategies/responding-to-the-readaloud-text/resistant-reading" target="_blank">resistant reading</a> of dominant narratives.</span><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"> Influence and Influencers</h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">In my anniversary reflections, I Googled the term "influencers." Did you know that Kylie Jenner and Kim Kardashian each have 450 million followers? Big-name singers, actors and soccer players each have hundreds of millions of followers. Make-up, fashion and magic typically attract hundreds of millions of followers. There are no followers on my blog, but I do have 1,221 followers on <a href="https://www.quora.com/profile/Jay-Sour" target="_blank">Quora</a>, where my answers have been viewed over 5 million times. (To bastardize a Marshall McLuhan quote: "The platform is the message.")</span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Surprise</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">s </span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">I have always imagined that I was writing my blog for a Canadian readership. My core audience is 68 friends, relatives and acquaintances that I shamelessly email posts to without their permission. To my surprise, Canada (19,900 views) is fourth on the list of countries where my blog has been viewed. Apparently, the blog is almost as popular in Russia (17,500 views) as it is in Canada--which is slightly disturbing. My dominant audience is in the USA (506,000 views). (Should I flatter myself that I am being tracked by the CIA, NSA and FBI?) The unflattering conclusion is that I haven't really been getting through to my imagined audience, my <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_community" target="_blank">imagined community</a>, Canada.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">My guru has advised me that with so many people using VPN and proxies, I shouldn't take these geographical numbers too seriously. No matter. I remain undeterred. The world may not change while I am still in it, but I believe in <a href="https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/" target="_blank">chaos theory</a> and the analogy of "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_in_a_bottle" target="_blank">a message in a bottle</a>." So stay tuned.</span><br /></p><p> </p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-41374575737763579902023-05-03T05:21:00.000-07:002023-05-03T05:21:16.847-07:00On Sharing Intelligence<p> <span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">By now we have all heard about how a young National Guard airman, Jack Teixeira, leaked classified Pentagon documents to a Discord chat group of a dozen people. Eventually, some of the materials were promulgated by the Donbass Devushka (aka Sarah Bils) to 65,000 followers of her podcast. What caught my attention in this story is how long it took for anyone to notice that these "top secret" files were available on social media. The <i>New York Times</i> is now reporting that some of the documents have been available online for more than a year.</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGKgxtscbt8jKiG8E19AVRTBbc5SpYDp1V-UCevb5BC3rD87i_vsRCF39ciezm-5FY1G2k4a1FiH8qBGxHbQQF6FBH0br0H8ETNJewK5dimPkYFwHzRQxcHPJgeelETC5F6DA4TSoJ2ryxiGr-uXkOZ7eYLmoFxU0YlxB_tHmVbrXsj5BSiRvXk0gFGg/s1500/20230331_100303_64c9804e6c343ba1294178f89eb27fe8.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="1500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGKgxtscbt8jKiG8E19AVRTBbc5SpYDp1V-UCevb5BC3rD87i_vsRCF39ciezm-5FY1G2k4a1FiH8qBGxHbQQF6FBH0br0H8ETNJewK5dimPkYFwHzRQxcHPJgeelETC5F6DA4TSoJ2ryxiGr-uXkOZ7eYLmoFxU0YlxB_tHmVbrXsj5BSiRvXk0gFGg/s320/20230331_100303_64c9804e6c343ba1294178f89eb27fe8.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Uhhh, I write a blog see. So I find myself asking, if you think you have valuable content to share and you make it available online, what do you have to do to get people to notice and read it? It appears the answer is to get yourself arrested, like Teixeira, and have every major newspaper publish a picture on their front pages of you being taken away in handcuffs. If you have seen the movie <i>Snowden</i>, you know that the major breakthrough was to get <i>The Guardian</i> to publish the fact that the USA was breaking its own laws and spying on American citizens. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">From the Snowden story, we know the NSA used a program called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM" target="_blank">PRISM</a> to collect surveillance on US citizens and American allies. From the Teixeira story, we know the US secret services are still collecting intel on American allies and have undisclosed info on the war in Ukraine. From Snowden to Teixeira, the real story seems to be that nothing has changed, not even how the intelligence community protects its secrets from public disclosure.</span> <span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">In this era of massive social media, it feels like everybody is talking . . . at once . . . and nobody is really listening.</span><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">In fact, the much bigger story is the one that is widely available in the media and, I bet, you are less likely to have noticed: <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/united-states-of-secrets/the-frontline-interview-william-binney/" target="_blank">William Binney</a>. Binney, an NSA intelligence officer, developed a surveillance program called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinThread" target="_blank">ThinThread</a> which allowed the government to collect metadata on foreign operatives without spying on American citizens. In 2000, the NSA closed down Binney's in-house, inexpensive program; opting for a program call <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project" target="_blank">Trailblazer</a>, developed by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing" title="Boeing">Boeing</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Sciences_Corporation" title="Computer Sciences Corporation">Computer Sciences Corporation</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton" title="Booz Allen Hamilton">Booz Allen Hamilton</a>. Trailblazer directly contravened the US constitution by collecting massive amounts of data on American citizens and cost billions of dollars by the time it was closed down in 2006. Binney claims that ThinThread would have prevented 9/11 if it had been allowed to keep running. When Binney and a number of patriotic American whistleblowers--<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Roark" title="">Diane Roark</a>, <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake" title="">Thomas Andrews Drake</a>, J. Kirk Wiebe, and Ed Loomis--tried to inform their superiors and the US government about the abuse, mismanagement, fraud and other crimes of the NSA, they were arrested by the FBI.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">If you have watch the recent Netflix release of <i>Official Secrets</i>, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Gun" target="_blank">Katharine Gun</a> story, you are aware that nothing has changed because, above all, the secret services are designed to protect themselves and the government of the day. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="298" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/t64H3S7r4wo" width="358" youtube-src-id="t64H3S7r4wo"></iframe></span></div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Does anyone remember the ending of <i>Three Days of the Condor</i>? </span><br /></p><p><br /></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-67728624119654540622023-04-20T07:51:00.001-07:002024-01-02T09:57:54.893-08:00The Corruption of Art and the Art of Corruption<h3 class="hd1" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">What Is Art? </span></h3><p class="hd1" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;">"<a href="https://www.zimbio.com/trivia/3xqTSNmeqem/Can+Tell+Difference+Between+Modern+Art+Child" target="_blank"><span>Can You Tell The Difference Between Modern Art and a Child's Painting?"</span></a><span> </span><span>[It's a quiz.] How have we reached the point where we struggle to distinguish the crayon scribbling of a toddler from fine art?</span></span></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGKZ5Rkrqv91EGSWpOPeI5WbK1MtBI-jrMlpaj6LmjESUQMk6c0yWhUs13ynIZxBvOLT7GKpIyD0HGNm9We9SGWfxAxzvfH1-ANWn21QGTbU47dcj2lHcUfxDajS3J2xAwGZoDuuKLwSdq6mf326dpaOJv4kRdvASk3Z-mIjXDyd_HFtxiElH5NeeO-w/s1242/B3-CC211_ABSTRA_GR_20181018182205.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="810" data-original-width="1242" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGKZ5Rkrqv91EGSWpOPeI5WbK1MtBI-jrMlpaj6LmjESUQMk6c0yWhUs13ynIZxBvOLT7GKpIyD0HGNm9We9SGWfxAxzvfH1-ANWn21QGTbU47dcj2lHcUfxDajS3J2xAwGZoDuuKLwSdq6mf326dpaOJv4kRdvASk3Z-mIjXDyd_HFtxiElH5NeeO-w/s320/B3-CC211_ABSTRA_GR_20181018182205.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The History of art </span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Nic Thurman offers a brilliantly succinct answer to the question. To summarize the already succinct: the concept of "art" as used today is relatively new--less than three centuries old. (The same can be said about "literature" by the way.) While we, the guileless, might imagine that art has something to do with skill and craft and beauty, that is not the case as the concept is used today. In the 18th century the German Romantic philosophers Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Hegel respectively claimed that "art" was the product of "genius" and a reflection of the "spirit" of the age. Consequently, anything that someone in authority deemed to show "spirit" and "genius" was art.
Skill, craft and beauty became passé.</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_3ZPtSWEkZ8" width="320" youtube-src-id="_3ZPtSWEkZ8"></iframe></div><br /><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Art Is like money</span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Money, as we've learned, <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2020/12/the-truth-about-money-money-good-money.html" target="_blank">is whatever people think is money</a>. And art is whatever people think is art. In both cases we accept the judgment of the people who are supposed to know. If it ends up on a museum wall, it's art. If it ends up in a bank, it's money. Eventually art became not just like money but, for all intents and purposes, art became money; that is, a way to store and exchange monetary value. As art went from being objects of beauty to objects of fashionable genius, as determined by curators and auctioneers, it also soared as an investment instrument, a source of liquidity. </span></p><h4 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><i>Blurred Lines </i></span><br /></h4><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The documentary film, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk5X4MdMuQw" target="_blank">Blurred Lines: Inside the Art World</a>, elaborates how the "art world" became a network of insiders, a bubble of artists, agents, curators, gallerists, collectors, museums, warehouses and auction houses--all focused on the wealthy .1% ready to spend multiple millions on the works of whoever was deemed genius. A recent article in the <i>Wall Street Journal</i> entitled </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><a href="http://ereader.wsj.net/?" target="_blank">The Art Market Is All About the 0.1% </a></span></span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://ereader.wsj.net/?" target="_blank"> </a></span><span>reiterates the point</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">. </span> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Art buyers are either the super rich .1% or wannabes trying to claim a place in that rarefied clique, or they may be of that most decried tribe, the speculators who buy a work of art for multiple millions one day and sell it for multiple millions more the next. Owners of art, collectors of Andy Warhol, for example, have a vested interest in ensuring that the price of art works never drop and a Warhol, for example, is never allowed to sell for less than a million dollars. The artists interviewed in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk5X4MdMuQw" target="_blank">Blurred Lines </a>declare an absolute lack of interest in money. (Methinks they protesteth too much.) The exception is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Hirst" target="_blank">Damien Hirst</a>, of shark-in-a-tank-of-formaldehyde fame, who argues that the money game, of which he is ultimate player, makes art more exciting.</span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The Art of Corruption <br /></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">In terms of art facilitating corruption, look no further than the suspicious fact that the paintings of Hunter Biden, lawyer, drug addict, "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/arts/design/hunter-biden-art-white-house.html" target="_blank">novice painter</a>"</span> <span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">and son of the US President,</span> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/arts/design/hunter-biden-art-white-house.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">are selling for between $75,000 and $500,000</span></a> <span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">in a New York gallery</span>. <span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Or, as reported in the <i>Wall Street Journal</i> this week:</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-charges-alleged-hezbollah-financier-with-illegally-shipping-fine-art-diamonds-1be07823" target="_blank">An alleged financier of U.S.-designated terrorist group Hezbollah was
charged with a scheme to evade American sanctions and illegally import
and export hundreds of millions of dollars worth of <b>fine art</b> and
diamonds.</a></blockquote><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The Goldfinch</span></i> <br /></h3><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM0RjwRosNGrUm-BZdQ7mJrHgAtXqd4ZsPCgkF8kcKMbsk4pHXxNYkH76d8ALIc7V7MVP42ekBYHgZccHDI8rlCAZxF2wyqnF8nISfzSyHIzsUQyy1kllzUzUoeoT4nrS5Rxu4yFCfq_Etd-GqvpPbnyDU5cNmq5p_q8ZydVNC64znXL81u0L5mvLPjQ/s341/The_goldfinch_by_donna_tart.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="341" data-original-width="220" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM0RjwRosNGrUm-BZdQ7mJrHgAtXqd4ZsPCgkF8kcKMbsk4pHXxNYkH76d8ALIc7V7MVP42ekBYHgZccHDI8rlCAZxF2wyqnF8nISfzSyHIzsUQyy1kllzUzUoeoT4nrS5Rxu4yFCfq_Etd-GqvpPbnyDU5cNmq5p_q8ZydVNC64znXL81u0L5mvLPjQ/s320/The_goldfinch_by_donna_tart.png" width="206" /></a></div><p style="text-align: left;"> <span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The novel, <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goldfinch_(novel)" target="_blank">The Goldfinch</a></i>, provides a coherent, fictional account of how works of art can be used as collateral in drug deals and other international crimes.</span></p><p></p><br /><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrnGj4D8iQtcgr76ZR-A_xapAnButGyhdx6SGexkPa2EH0t4zmGKxxAlO7zBUT15jsXGhhLHOs5-nXnCxXfghH8Bp_gqAMHNVUwnSjmGUn63B8uZZpWykIN65TZMcOtBMVNX-ggXrDDiKKgVPpYBwYPMRVHhSMZLt6YhYwZaTSK-YkiocFfyIfUXXPog/s305/200px-Fabritius-vink.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="305" data-original-width="200" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrnGj4D8iQtcgr76ZR-A_xapAnButGyhdx6SGexkPa2EH0t4zmGKxxAlO7zBUT15jsXGhhLHOs5-nXnCxXfghH8Bp_gqAMHNVUwnSjmGUn63B8uZZpWykIN65TZMcOtBMVNX-ggXrDDiKKgVPpYBwYPMRVHhSMZLt6YhYwZaTSK-YkiocFfyIfUXXPog/w188-h400/200px-Fabritius-vink.jpg" width="188" /></a></p><br /><h4 style="text-align: left;"> </h4><p><br /></p><p></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The novel references the 1654 painting. "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goldfinch_(painting)" target="_blank">The Goldfinch</a>" by Carel Fabritius, now part of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritshuis" title="Mauritshuis">Mauritshuis</a> collection in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hague" title="The Hague">The Hague</a>, Netherlands.</span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Bitcoin for Billionaires<br /></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">According to <i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TSE2TcMduc" target="_blank">The Black Box of the Art Business</a>, </i>one of the largest collections of fine art in the world is housed in a warehouse in Switzerland, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Freeport" target="_blank">Geneva </a></span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Freeport" target="_blank">Freeport</a>.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5TSE2TcMduc" width="320" youtube-src-id="5TSE2TcMduc"></iframe></span></div><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /> As elaborated in the documentary, this "black box" of art, jewels and collectables, allows the super-rich to hide their wealth from the tax collector as well as facilitating theft and fraud. Remember the panic when were were told that bitcoin would facilitate a universe of dark-web crimes? Art has become bitcoin for billionaires.</span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"> Addendum </span></h3><h3 style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip-GS7gxGJ0h5T5qEyRYasRjKG3mCv-i-ZzaFWA4hr2Omg8deAiAoizEY0sa3H0Yf-0Adj9OxLRvb_kR8NFGsIsRJBS7Lv5XREu3dkyGhw8GztqCplgJwqCJo9mLqVWr2uyrljKz-vSTWayBKpcv24Tg2IdAxVyXW_OBA9Agl3pzg1W16ppnTkV6JHHQ/s828/Screen%20Shot%202023-05-14%20at%2010.36.38%20AM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="828" height="309" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip-GS7gxGJ0h5T5qEyRYasRjKG3mCv-i-ZzaFWA4hr2Omg8deAiAoizEY0sa3H0Yf-0Adj9OxLRvb_kR8NFGsIsRJBS7Lv5XREu3dkyGhw8GztqCplgJwqCJo9mLqVWr2uyrljKz-vSTWayBKpcv24Tg2IdAxVyXW_OBA9Agl3pzg1W16ppnTkV6JHHQ/w400-h309/Screen%20Shot%202023-05-14%20at%2010.36.38%20AM.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></h3><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"> </span> <br /></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-39979264720235890792023-03-17T13:15:00.003-07:002023-06-25T06:41:57.976-07:00Do Facts Matter?<h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Facts Aren't truth </span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">People confuse facts and the truth. <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2016/11/does-knowledge-require-truth.html" target="_blank">Truth only applies when there is meaning</a>. Facts only have meaning when they are connected. When all the relevant facts are assembled in a logical and coherent fashion, the result is the truth or at least <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2016/11/does-knowledge-require-truth.html" target="_blank">some degree of truth</a>.</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMykNTL9Upm_19LP5LfA--1-hQ-kTeKkc8Ve7R13y1tWR1D_Rceu3ubFdjo8jJ_rFrw5qt7SDurqzPV9IC3Qvp3xLKE5F7OS8JZNvN2O4foi-ogeAcNUpQX5GP_UNzbXZoBpLOEfEjyNZbQTyJiUJ4-CERzBGfqK1iccqPDifbksOb07kRAu9vO51aAw/s784/image0.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="784" data-original-width="623" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMykNTL9Upm_19LP5LfA--1-hQ-kTeKkc8Ve7R13y1tWR1D_Rceu3ubFdjo8jJ_rFrw5qt7SDurqzPV9IC3Qvp3xLKE5F7OS8JZNvN2O4foi-ogeAcNUpQX5GP_UNzbXZoBpLOEfEjyNZbQTyJiUJ4-CERzBGfqK1iccqPDifbksOb07kRAu9vO51aAw/w318-h400/image0.jpeg" width="318" /></a></div><br /><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">"Agreed-upon Facts": say what?</span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">In the everyday world, facts are hard to come by. I find myself repeatedly forced to use the expression "the agreed-upon facts." Is this expression redundant (a pleonasm) or a contradiction in terms (an oxymoron)? If whatever is "a fact" doesn't that mean that everyone cogent must necessarily agree? If whatever must be "agreed upon" doesn't that mean it is something different from if not the opposite of "a fact"?</span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Polarization</span> <br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The problem gets worse. We live in an increasingly polarized world. Beneath this polarization is a world where feelings trump facts. We accept as fact whatever happens to support and assuage our feelings of the moment, and dismiss those facts which don't fit with our opinions, beliefs and emotions.</span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">How We learn that reason is wrong</span> <br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The situation isn't accidental and it isn't natural. Beginning in elementary school we teach children slogans like "follow your heart," "pursue your dreams" and "be true to yourself" without stopping to consider what these instructions might actually mean. Outside the classroom, we are bombarded with <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2018/01/understanding-romanticism.html" target="_blank">romance</a>, the notion that human desire can overcome reality. The hero will sacrifice the world--literally--to save the unrequited love of his first sight. And fiction always proves him right. The character who displays reason and logic, if not the villain, will be the weaselly <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2020/05/ethics-by-numbers.html" target="_blank">egoist</a> we know to despise at first glance.<br /></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Does Fiction affect how we view the world? </span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">We can pretend that our perceptions and vision of the world are unaffected by romantic fiction. But everywhere I look I see pandering to prejudice and naive melodrama--endless "news" stories implying virtuous heroes, innocent victims and evil villains. The binaries of absolute good and evil only survive when they are scrubbed of facts and challenging details. Still, the stories survive and propagate because we have all been taught to believe whatever it is that we already happen to believe . . . until a generation later and the story changes.</span><br /></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-54003866026770023152023-03-02T08:32:00.006-08:002023-03-16T04:48:35.679-07:00Is Donald Trump the Lesser Evil?<h4 class="abody split" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">"This Thing has to stop" </span><br /></h4><p class="abody split"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In a <a href="http://ereader.wsj.net/?" target="_blank"><i>Wall Street Journal</i> editorial</a>, Donald Trump is quoted as saying "This thing [the war in Ukraine] has to stop, and it's got to stop now. [ . . .] <span class="Fid_11">The United States should negotiate peace between these two countries, and I don’t think they should be sending very much.” Trump has pledged "to </span><span class="Fid_11">clean house of all the warmongers and America-Last globalists." The editorial goes on to mock Trump's "foreign policy" as "mercurial at best" while noting that the "ever-more-populist Mr. Trump" has set himself apart from his political competition--not just Joe Biden but </span><span class="Fid_11"> declared candidate Nikki Haley, and potential primary entrants Mike Pence, Tim Scott,</span><span class="Fid_11 split"> Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton who are all on record backing Ukraine. The question mark is Ron DeSantis who is the focus of the editorial.</span></span></span></p><p class="abody split"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Fid_11 split"></span></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Fid_11 split"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNrRGZVaslpBUpHEsGB1qhvX6_YvpSEyP8eEGldrdD-oJkSbosMEeDi3qm1NMfqwkV4sx6UoY2uv88-y76sNf4oj7p9NTAg_p9tWGkqwd2YwCUv4jj-fIo1nqcxU49xmF1Rhl6DtQPrDPzi-_FwCk8c6Oc4h0CjIyH7mLMRiJG02f8SHzEx6Rf1yyDjQ/s1125/image2.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="901" data-original-width="1125" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNrRGZVaslpBUpHEsGB1qhvX6_YvpSEyP8eEGldrdD-oJkSbosMEeDi3qm1NMfqwkV4sx6UoY2uv88-y76sNf4oj7p9NTAg_p9tWGkqwd2YwCUv4jj-fIo1nqcxU49xmF1Rhl6DtQPrDPzi-_FwCk8c6Oc4h0CjIyH7mLMRiJG02f8SHzEx6Rf1yyDjQ/w400-h320/image2.jpeg" width="400" /></a></span></span></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Fid_11 split"><br /></span></span></span><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span class="Fid_11 split"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Trump's Opposition to arming Ukraine </span></span></h3><p class="abody split"><span class="Fid_11 split"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Trump's opposition to the war has the look of spur-of-the-moment, opportunistic populism. However, according to John Bolton's White House memoir, Trump has long been reticent about arming Ukraine. Trump was explicitly concerned that arming Ukraine against Russia could provoke World War III which, despite the guffawing of his critics, is a possibility before us today. Americans learned of Trump's hesitance to sign off on a 250-million-dollar, military-aid package to Ukraine during the impeachment inquiry in 2019. At the time, to anti-Trumpists like me, leaked minutes of the telephone conversation between Trump and Zelensky seemed irrefutable evidence that the President of the USA was trying to extort the President of Ukraine to get dirt on his political rival. However, a close focus on a few sentences of the <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/trump-ukraine-phone-call-transcript-text-pdf-1510770" target="_blank">notes taken of that conversation</a> leaves out much of the context. Trump might well have wondered why the newly-elected President of Ukraine, a Russian-speaker from the east of Ukraine, a multi-millionaire media celebrity like himself, who had campaigned on a promise of peace with Russia and supported the Minsk Agreements, was now asking for weapons to confront the Russian-backed militias in the eastern provinces. Trump also rankled at giving un-scrutinized military aid to a notoriously corrupt nation which was <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/china/ukraine-crisis-threatens-chinas-discreet-pipeline-military-technology-2022-03-03/" target="_blank">supplying military technology to China</a>.</span></span><span class="Fid_11 split" style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><h4 class="abody split" style="text-align: left;"><span class="Fid_11 split" style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The Conspiracy theory: Bidens in Ukraine <br /></span></h4><p class="abody split"><span class="Fid_11 split" style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Trump had also come to accept a conspiracy theory spun by John Giuliani that Ukraine was the source of disinformation undermining his presidential campaigns. We now know that some of the details of the conspiracy were not entirely theoretical. In April 2014, Vice-president Biden was in Ukraine--one of his three visits to Ukraine that year--to announce </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">that "<a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/22/remarks-press-vice-president-joe-biden-and-ukrainian-prime-minister-arse" target="_blank">we, the United States, stand with [. . .] all the Ukrainian people</a>" and encouraging a "<a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/22/remarks-press-vice-president-joe-biden-and-ukrainian-prime-minister-arse" target="_blank">real fight against corruption and victory over corruption</a>." In May 2014, less than a month after Joe's anti-corruption preaching to Ukrainians, Joe's son Hunter Biden was invited onto the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, and paid $400,000, despite Hunter's being, in his own words, in his "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/analysis-hunter-bidens-hard-drive-shows-firm-took-11-million-2013-2018-rcna29462" target="_blank">deepest skid into addiction</a>." Even when George Kent, a Secretary of State official, informed the vice-president's office that <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/analysis-hunter-bidens-hard-drive-shows-firm-took-11-million-2013-2018-rcna29462" target="_blank">Hunter Biden was accepting payment from a Ukrainian company whose chief executive was under investigation for bribery and money-laundering,</a> no action was taken, and the details suppressed. Hunter's infamous lost-and-found laptop revealed that he had failed to pay the required US taxes on the $400,000-dollar Ukrainian payment and, by 2020, he was two million dollars in arrears on payments to the IRS. Perhaps most importantly, this information was available prior to the 2020 US presidential election and was published in the <i>New York Post</i>. However, the FBI labelled the claims as Russian disinformation and <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/04/26/elon-musk-says-suspending-ny-post-from-twitter-was-incredibly-inappropriate/" target="_blank">executives at Twitter blocked the information from being circulated.</a></span><br /></p><h4 class="abody split" style="text-align: left;"><span class="Fid_11 split"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Stormy Daniels versus Navy Joan Roberts Biden<br /></span></span></h4><p class="abody split"><span class="Fid_11 split"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Prosecutors are twisting themselves in knots trying to figure out <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/01/30/trump-could-face-charges-for-stormy-daniels-payments-as-manhattan-da-reportedly-convenes-grand-jury/?sh=6e7c5a6f51e6" target="_blank">how to turn Trump's paying Stormy Daniels $130,000 into a crime</a>. In the meantime, Hunter Biden, having denied paternity and balked at child support, has now <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/01/14/hunter-biden-asks-court-to-stop-love-child-from-taking-his-sullied-surname/" target="_blank">gone to court to try and prevent his four-year-old biological daughter from using the name Biden</a>. If Hunter is a "deadbeat dad," does that make the President of the USA a "deadbeat granddad"?</span></span></p><h4 class="abody split" style="text-align: left;"><span class="Fid_11 split"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">"Avoiding a Long War" <br /></span></span></h4><p class="subtitle"><span class="Fid_11 split" style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Far beyond conspiracy theories and the melodrama of dysfunctional families, what really matters is the war in Ukraine. Trump's run for the presidency in 2024 will consequently be a referendum on the war in Ukraine, first within the Republican Party and, if he is the Republican candidate for President, then in the US electorate at large. No doubt we will hear Trump's plans for a negotiated peace described as farfetched. However, they do align with a policy paper published by the Rand Corporation entitled</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"> "<a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html" target="_blank">Avoiding a Long War: U.S. Policy and the Trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict</a>." The paper is a clearheaded, pragmatic and comprehensive analysis of the war.</span></p><h4 class="subtitle" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">American Interests and priorities<br /></span></h4><p class="subtitle"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The authors of the paper declare straightforwardly that "<a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html" target="_blank">This Perspective focuses on U.S. interests, which often align with but are not synonymous with Ukrainian interests</a>." The highest priorities, in terms of US and western interests, are: 1) avoiding a nuclear war (the authors reason that Russia's use of nuclear weapons "to prevent a catastrophic defeat" is "plausible") and 2) avoiding escalation of the war into a Russia-NATO conflict. Their thesis is that the longer the war goes on the more likely these worse-case scenarios become. Additionally, the authors argue, a lengthy war in Ukraine diminishes American preparedness to confront China. </span></p><h4 class="subtitle" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Negotiated Peace is the likely and perhaps only possible outcome <br /></span></h4><p class="subtitle"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Perhaps the paper's most important conclusion is that "<a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html" target="_blank">Since neither side appears to have the intention or capabilities to achieve absolute victory, the war will most likely end with some sort of negotiated outcome</a>." In fact, the best possible guarantee of peace is a negotiated outcome. Even if the most optimistic of Ukrainian predictions come to fruition and Russian forces are driven out of all Ukrainian territories, Russia could and likely would repair its military and launch another invasion in four or five years. To guarantee peace, a Ukrainian victory would have to include not only regime change but the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_dissolution_of_Russia" target="_blank">dismantling of the Russian state</a>--a possibility which returns us to the worst of all possible hypotheses: nuclear war.</span></p><h4 class="subtitle" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Lines on a map <br /></span></h4><p class="subtitle"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Virtually all wars are about where to draw a line on the map. Where to draw the line between Ukraine and Russia may be a crucial question for Ukrainian nationalists, but the territorial issue matters little to the USA. Russia is not a threat to the USA unless of course the situation reaches a level of total madness and a nuclear holocaust. In 2014, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-dismisses-russia-as-regional-power-acting-out-of-weakness/2014/03/25/1e5a678e-b439-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html" target="_blank">Barack Obama dismissed Russia a regional power</a> and therefore no threat to the USA, which raises the question, why has the USA and, in particular, Joe Biden continued to encourage this conflict? Biden will need to have a convincing answer for American voters before November 2024. Will the rhetoric of good against evil, right versus wrong, and democracy versus dictatorship prevail against Trump's pragmatic appeals to American self-interest? As "<a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html" target="_blank">Avoiding a Long War</a>" outlines, the world-wide costs of this war far outweigh its potential benefits. In a <i>Wall Street Journal</i> editorial entitled "<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-best-foreign-policy-not-starting-any-wars-ukraine-russia-war-rocket-nuclear-power-weapons-defense-11675186959" target="_blank">Trump's Best Foreign Policy: Not Starting Any Wars</a>," Republican Senator <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Vance" target="_blank">J.D. Vance</a>, author of <i>Hillbilly Elegies</i>, announces his support for Donald Trump in 2024 "because he won't recklessly send Americans to fight overseas." Amazingly, American voters may come to decide that Trump, campaigning for a negotiated peace, is on the side of the angels.</span><br /></p><p class="abody split"><span class="Fid_11 split"><br /></span></p><p class="abody split"><span class="Fid_11 split"><br /></span></p><p class="abody split"><span class="Fid_11 split"><br /></span></p><p class="abody split"><span class="Fid_11 split"><br /></span></p><p class="abody split"><span class="Fid_11 split"><br /></span></p><p class="abody split"><span class="Fid_11 split"><br /></span></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-50211621797392140092023-02-22T09:02:00.001-08:002023-02-22T09:20:04.931-08:00The World Has Never Been Closer to Nuclear War! Big Deal! So What?<p>Being
born in the decade following the bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, my entire conscious life I have lived in fear of nuclear war.
Fear is a healthful response to danger. It's what keeps animals
alive. It allows species, including humans, to survive. Unfortunately, we humans have always been a suicidal species. Since we discovered that just two atom bombs were enough to kill 300,000 of our fellow humans, Russia and the
USA (not to mention China, France, the UK, North Korea, Israel, India,
and Pakistan) have stockpiled enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the planet
multiple times over. Fear of MAD (mutually assured destruction) has
allowed
the planet to survive for over seventy years. However, in recent months our enlightened leaders have been displaying signs of great courage and the world has been celebrating their valour. All this unbridled, suicidal bravery is truly frightening.<br /></p><p>In elementary school we were told that in the event of a nuclear attack we should crouch under our desks. By the age of eight or nine, we were cynical enough to add to the instructions: "place your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye."</p><p>I was ten years old during the Cuban missile crisis. I still remember the day the local alarm sounded announcing incoming nuclear missiles. Before word came down that it was just a test, I had time to think about what to do when the world was about to end. I realized then and I remember now when (to quote <i>Waiting for Godot</i>) "there is nothing to be done," you become deadly calm.<br /></p><p class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaWZobsP-S2XzeAWKGm39HimWI1NuLkSd_ZUFw6F9G0EFebLo54YVBSgtxMyoXbAuxaBaoSm_wn-Yum9R09IpFqry6MqG1J_tdUoIo1ceTJlzgedHSnVWN4FI28f6CLvldWYQacx11Ijw8O4pMsmfe2JUkHLfMDquMU5nB0HuOXvDTXBK2vKVt9dnD5w/s602/main-qimg-20e528739c48a4f8b123ce977b38c24a-lq.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="602" data-original-width="602" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaWZobsP-S2XzeAWKGm39HimWI1NuLkSd_ZUFw6F9G0EFebLo54YVBSgtxMyoXbAuxaBaoSm_wn-Yum9R09IpFqry6MqG1J_tdUoIo1ceTJlzgedHSnVWN4FI28f6CLvldWYQacx11Ijw8O4pMsmfe2JUkHLfMDquMU5nB0HuOXvDTXBK2vKVt9dnD5w/s320/main-qimg-20e528739c48a4f8b123ce977b38c24a-lq.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div><p> </p><p>In recent days, people in positions of privilege and
power talking fearlessly about nuclear war has become commonplace. In fact,
we are explicitly told it is a mistake to fear Vladimir Putin and his
threats of nuclear war. To those many advocates of escalation telling us that Russia <b>must</b> be defeated, I have one question: How do you know Vladimir Putin will <b>not</b> use the Russian nuclear arsenal?<br /></p><p>Perusing the narratives against a negotiated peace and the Minsk Accords in search of an answer to this question, I can't see any credible logic in the responses. "Putin is bluffing" simply means that he will continue to bluff until he is forced to act. "The American response will be dire." What could the Americans do, that they aren't doing now? Are we threatening the Russians with a nuclear holocaust? Does anyone believe that if Russia is attacked with conventional forces, the Russians will restrain from a nuclear response?<br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1XnYfIuht-6NEDRWEh7aqzdYHjs-6ZG5s6-tJaOnR8aEgKDBy98oZJ2vVYryPi9wcRC2ZphJpf6TyVcjTCNmjBAobav1nOF0XnhcWnYtkHQs6YuFrXP1DqZmxbNX4KN0-T8la0Pg6mreRpknM_pAVX9UMTUmvq5sT8R8PEEhk-jIFUPW6gsX6ytcTJA/s1440/90-seconds-until-midnight-uai-1440x810.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="810" data-original-width="1440" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1XnYfIuht-6NEDRWEh7aqzdYHjs-6ZG5s6-tJaOnR8aEgKDBy98oZJ2vVYryPi9wcRC2ZphJpf6TyVcjTCNmjBAobav1nOF0XnhcWnYtkHQs6YuFrXP1DqZmxbNX4KN0-T8la0Pg6mreRpknM_pAVX9UMTUmvq5sT8R8PEEhk-jIFUPW6gsX6ytcTJA/s320/90-seconds-until-midnight-uai-1440x810.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p>The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has re-set the "Doomsday Clock" to 90 seconds before midnight--a level of "<a href="https://thebulletin.org/2023/01/press-release-doomsday-clock-set-at-90-seconds-to-midnight/" target="_blank">unprecedented danger</a>," the closest to midnight it has ever been. Bookies at <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/will-russia-use-nuclear-weapons-thousands-are-betting-it-1752837" target="_blank">Polymarket are offering 20-to-1 odds on Russia using nuclear weapons in 2023</a>. </p><p>The bravura I see everywhere these days reminds me of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Power" target="_blank">General Thomas Power</a>, commander in chief of the US Air Command, who infamously responded to the threat of nuclear war saying "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Power" target="_blank">At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!</a>"</p><p>As we stand before the precipice, the big news in Canada and the USA is that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/article/ufo-object-balloon-shot-down.html?searchResultPosition=3" target="_blank">American "Top Guns" shot down some Chinese balloons.</a> Balloons for gawd sake! Who could've imagined that Nena's 1980s satiric pop song, "99 Red Balloons," would end up sounding like it was written in February 2023?<br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="391" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hiwgOWo7mDc" width="470" youtube-src-id="hiwgOWo7mDc"></iframe></div><br /><p></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-87488593476890900522023-02-13T07:49:00.004-08:002023-06-24T16:48:04.693-07:00On "Putin's American Cheerleaders"<h3 class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Critical Thinking skills <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I have to preface this post by revisiting "<a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/search?q=critical+thinking" target="_blank">critical thinking skills</a>"--that phrase used by university programs in the humanities and social sciences as a core justification for their existence. The vast majority of university students graduate from these programs. In theory, millions upon millions of university-educated Americans and Canadians can claim an expertise in identifying arguments based on logic and evidence and, conversely, immediately spot logical fallacies: the <a href="https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem" target="_blank">ad hominem</a>, the <a href="https://www.grammarly.com/blog/straw-man-fallacy/" target="_blank">straw man</a>, <a href="https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association" target="_blank">guilt by association</a>, and <a href="https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/" target="_blank">rhetorical obfuscation</a>. </span></span></p><h3 class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"Putin's American Cheerleaders" <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I read <span class="css-1oyikuz-AuthorContainer e1575iv83"><span class="css-5yr7r5-PlainByline e10pnb9y1">Adrian Karatnycky's <i>Wall Street Journal</i> article, "</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-russia-war-ukraine-solovyov-jeffrey-sachs-columbia-university-mark-episkopos-center-national-interest-dimitri-simes-11673017425?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1" target="_blank">Putin’s American Cheerleaders: How Jeffrey Sachs, Mark Episkopos and Dimitri Simes contribute to the Russian propaganda effort</a>" against the grain, as a string of logical fallacies light on rebuttal evidence. The headline makes obvious the <i>ad hominem</i> intent to attack the authors rather than their arguments. </span></span></p><h3 class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">We Are at war <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">But let's be clear: we are at war. The war is being fought by Ukrainians, but it is a war between Russia and the collective West, led by the USA. The war has caused global precarity, massive destruction and the deaths of thousands. Beyond the concrete devastation, the war in Ukraine is, above all, a propaganda war. Arguably, propaganda will determine the outcome of this war. In this context, we shouldn't be surprised that we are all likened to soldiers on the battlefield, and any deviation from the Western narrative is collaborating with the enemy, if not betrayal and treason. </span></span></p><h3 class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">And yet . . . <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Even if we are all conscripts in the propaganda war should we accept "<a href="https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45319/the-charge-of-the-light-brigade" target="_blank">to do and die</a>" in a nuclear <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Charge_of_the_Light_Brigade_(poem)">Crimean War</a> without stopping "to reason why"? Is it unreasonable to invoke "thinking skills" in the midst of this war? No-one knows the whole story of this war. Even in Kyiv or Moscow or Washington or Berlin or London or Ottawa, even on the battlefield, even with drones and satellites, people know as much and as little as they can see and hear and read. In a war, especially in a propaganda war like this one, enormous effort is put into controlling what is seen and heard and read. <br /></span></span></p><h3 class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Dominant Western narrative <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The dominant Western narrative, primarily in the legacy media, is that escalation is the only acceptable solution to the conflict in Ukraine. The argument is presented that Russia must be defeated because failure to defeat Russia now will lead to Russian expansionism and greater escalation somewhere down the road. Overlaying this argument is an appeal to morality. Russia must be defeated because the invasion and the conduct of the war are immoral, criminal and evil. Anything less than total Russian defeat would be a victory for evil.<span> </span> </span></span></p><h3 class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Does the Western narrative hold up under scrutiny? <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Under
the microscope of critical reasoning skills, the arguments for
escalation do not hold up well. Let me quickly insert that this does
not mean that they are wrong or untrue. They are simply unproven,
counterfactual, hypothetical, and speculative. We will inevitably try to imagine what Russia might do after the war, but there is a weakness in trying to be too specific and too certain about what might happen in the distant future. We can say with fair certainty that a negotiated peace--what the Western narrative qualifies as a Russian victory--would include some sort of autonomy if not outright Russian control of Crimea and the eastern regions of Ukraine; that is, those regions with significant populations of ethnic Russians where President Viktor Yanucovitch, who was overthrown in a bloody coup in 2014, had his strongest democratic support.<br /></span></span></p><h3 class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Moral argument <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The moral argument for escalating the war is equally weak. The argument depends on our accepting as axiomatic that the war is between absolute evil and pure goodness. The goal of propaganda is to promote this vision, but even cursory scrutiny of the context of the war makes this absolutist vision impossible to maintain. Some <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/death-toll-up-to-13-000-in-ukraine-conflict-says-un-rights-office/29791647.html" target="_blank">13,000 people were killed in the Donbas region</a> in the aftermath of the bloody coup overthrowing President Yanocovitch in 2014 and before Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. Even the <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/defense/380483-congress-bans-arms-to-controversial-ukrainian-militia-linked-to-neo-nazis/" target="_blank">US Congress has banned the sale of weapons to Ukraine's Azimov Battalion on the grounds that the battalion openly includes neo-Nazis in its ranks.</a><br /></span></span></p><h3 class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Naming and Shaming <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I first read "Putin's American Cheerleaders" because it provides a list of a half dozen Americans who question the </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">proxy war between Russia and the West going on in Ukraine</span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">--which isn't generally easy to come by. The article is a telling example of widespread, ham-fisted attempts to discredit, shame and silence anyone who dares to question the war. Articles of this ilk are emotionally evocative and are based on an underlying presumption of moral superiority shared by writer and reader. The vocabulary is emotionally charged but logical consideration of risks and outcomes is avoided. For potential outcomes, the war in Ukraine should be compared to other recent wars spearheaded by the USA--Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Vietnam and Korea--but these are comparisons which the dominant narrative tends to avoid.<br /></span></span></p><h3 class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Guilt by Association <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">While Mr. Karatnycky concedes that "</span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">experts are free to challenge the pro-Ukraine views held by the vast majority of Americans," he decries the fact that these American experts have appeared on a Russian program hosted by </span><span style="font-size: medium;">Vladimir Solovyov, whom he describes as a Russian propagandist. Karatnycky has more to say about Solovyov than about the "American cheerleaders." The Americans' failure is <a href="https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association" target="_blank">guilt by association</a> with Solovyov. According to Karatnycky, what Jeffrey Sachs said on Russian media was </span></span></p><p class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">that a “massive number” of Americans “wish to exit the conflict in
Ukraine,” condemned the U.S. administration for “disinformation,” and
called President Volodymyr Zelensky’s conditions for peace “absolute nonsense.”</span></span></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">None of these claims about American attitudes are obvious errors of fact. Zelensky's conditions for peace go beyond total Russian defeat and surrender. They sound a lot like the "conditions" imposed upon Germany after the First World War. The <i>Washington Post</i> has reported that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/05/ukraine-russia-peace-negotiations/" target="_blank">the Biden administration has been asking Zelensky to dial down his "conditions for peace."</a> </span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Framing the War as exclusively between Russia and Ukraine <br /></span></span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Karatnycky's awkward--and therefore revealing--attempts to frame the war as between Ukraine and Russia leaving the USA and even NATO out of the equation is typical of the dominant narrative. People who dare to suggest a negotiated peace are not identified as critics of the war but "<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-russia-war-ukraine-solovyov-jeffrey-sachs-columbia-university-mark-episkopos-center-national-interest-dimitri-simes-11673017425" target="_blank">Ukraine critics</a>." Americans who endorse escalation of the war are identified as "<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-russia-war-ukraine-solovyov-jeffrey-sachs-columbia-university-mark-episkopos-center-national-interest-dimitri-simes-11673017425" target="_blank">pro-Ukrainian</a>."<br /></span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">NATO Expansion isn't a threat! Really!? <br /></span></span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Jeffrey Sachs is characterized as a "Putin cheerleader" because, as with <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2022/03/foreign-policy-realism-can-agreement-on.html" target="_blank">a number of other "foreign policy realists</a>," he </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"has long argued that the West provoked Russia into invading
Ukraine in 2014 by virtue of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s 'threatening' expansion toward Russia." </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Karatnycky's</span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> quotation marks around the word "threatening" are intended to display a tone of sarcasm. Still, no matter what your politics, how can anyone look at the ongoing expansion of NATO to Russia's borders and logically conclude that the expansion of an inimical military alliance to a nation's very borders is not "threatening"?</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What Jeffrey Sachs said . . . <br /></span></span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Furthermore, beyond the threatening posture of NATO, as Sachs points out in an interview on <i>Democracy Now</i>, <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2022/12/6/jeffrey_sachs_ukraine_war" target="_blank">[ . . .] </a></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2022/12/6/jeffrey_sachs_ukraine_war" target="_blank">the United States, very unwisely and very provocatively, contributed to
the overthrow of Mr. Yanukovych in early 2014, setting in motion the
tragedy before our eyes</a>." </span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What Cannot be said: Ukraine is ethnically divided between east and west<br /></span></span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">One argument which shaming the authors is designed to preclude is that Ukraine is ethnically divided. As Sacks elaborates:</span></span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><blockquote><a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2022/12/6/jeffrey_sachs_ukraine_war" target="_blank">Ukraine itself is ethnically divided. On the western part, it’s ethnically Ukrainian, but complicated there, too. But on the east, which is the Donbas, Luhansk and Donetsk, the two regions that are the center of this war, these are predominantly Russian, ethnic Russian, Russian-speaking, Russian Orthodox, and, after Yanukovych’s overthrow, the place where paramilitaries demanded independence of these regions or joining Russia.</a></blockquote></span></span></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The "Minsk Accords" must also be denied <br /></span></span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The resulting Minsk Accords, as we have seen, are <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2022/10/on-blaming-america-for-russian.html" target="_blank">quashed and denied in pro-war editorials, even when the narrative requires contradicting its own sources</a>. Sachs argues:<br /></span></span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><blockquote>What happened — and this is crucial to understand — is that, in 2015,
there were agreements to solve this problem by giving autonomy to these
eastern regions that were predominantly ethnic Russian. And these are
called the Minsk agreements, Minsk I and Minsk II.</blockquote></span></span></div><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">John Bolton was in Ukraine in 2019 and reports that Volodymyr Zelensky, who was elected promising to end Ukrainian corruption and make peace with the eastern regions, "was determined to get the Donbas back as soon as possible and end the war within the Minsk agreements" (457 The Room Where It Happened). However in the intervening years there has been consistent repudiation and denial of the Minsk Accords in Western and Ukrainian media. It is as if they never existed.<br /></span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Zeitgeist: Preparing for the historical dialectic</span></span><br /></h3><p></p><p class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg953rY4zjjA7fNYXYtscQ8kEIebOWR1W1gP3vXHGQFwvVj44sgFjjJoQTe2hd8lmJH1pI81JIleohqpDg-9yGoXwNxrbkdKuDL2F_h-VOazvPHR8ygoJ2s0yv24BLeE_9N1ZFv_-FAxpg63OGzkAZbBLNkGqwX0Ti5Jj_77bHRA01arvCUfRcBqeMs-g/s1165/800px-Tulsi_Gabbard_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1165" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg953rY4zjjA7fNYXYtscQ8kEIebOWR1W1gP3vXHGQFwvVj44sgFjjJoQTe2hd8lmJH1pI81JIleohqpDg-9yGoXwNxrbkdKuDL2F_h-VOazvPHR8ygoJ2s0yv24BLeE_9N1ZFv_-FAxpg63OGzkAZbBLNkGqwX0Ti5Jj_77bHRA01arvCUfRcBqeMs-g/s320/800px-Tulsi_Gabbard_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg" width="220" /></a></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Karatnycky claims that "</span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Most U.S. guests on Russian media come from the fringe." He names Virginia State Sen. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Black_(politician)" target="_blank">Richard Black</a> and former <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" title="United States">United States</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps" title="United States Marine Corps">Marine Corps</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_officer" title="Intelligence officer">intelligence officer</a>, former <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Commission" title="United Nations Special Commission">United Nations Special Commission</a> (UNSCOM) weapons inspector <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter" target="_blank">Scott Ritter</a>.</span></span> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">However, the first name on his list of "Putin's American Cheerleaders" is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard" target="_blank">Tulsi Gabbard</a>, a former American Congresswoman and candidate in the 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries. In her interviews, she has a very simple and clear message: "The world has never been closer to a nuclear war."</span></span><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The rule of the historical dialectic is that the Zeitgeist will change over time and the dominant thesis of the age will give way to its antithesis. If the rule of the dialectic holds in this case, those "fringe" arguments against escalation, which are everywhere on social media in blogs and vlogs and interviews but nowhere in the <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, <i>New York Times</i>, or <i>Globe and Mail</i>, may soon become the dominant Western narrative.</span></span></p><p class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0" style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p><br /></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-45906941995075750052023-02-08T13:06:00.004-08:002023-03-10T13:34:11.140-08:00Is the War in Ukraine about Democracy?<p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The number of articles, essays and editorials on the war in Ukraine is overwhelming. They also tend to be quite tedious because the vocabulary--the word choice and adjectives--invariably announces in advance what the authors are going to say. Any fact can be spun in one direction or another to fit an established narrative. Is it possible to say anything about this war without surrendering to spin? I have decided that on this subject less is more. My ambition is to present a few facts and let you, dear reader, decide what conclusions or interpretations should be derived from those facts. Hmmm, already I'm being disingenuous. I'm choosing the facts, so my choice of facts already implies a particular interpretation or conclusion. Let me try again.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">It is a common claim that the war in Ukraine is being fought to preserve democracy both in Ukraine and, in some accounts, more widely in Europe and the Western world. In his <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/02/07/remarks-of-president-joe-biden-state-of-the-union-address-as-prepared-for-delivery/" target="_blank"><i>State of the Union</i></a> this week, President Biden called the war in Ukraine "the defense of democracy." I have come across a number of agreed-upon facts that may not contradict this claim but should at least invite us to consider the question. These are uncontested facts. They may be avoided or re-spun or buried beneath a mountain of verbiage, but no-one is denying that they are true.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">1. Viktor Yanucovitch was elected President of Ukraine for a five-year term in 2010. The election was overseen by <span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 27.14%; transform: scaleX(1.01305);">the <a href="https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/9/67844.pdf" target="_blank">Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the</a></span><a href="https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/9/67844.pdf" target="_blank"><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 28.78%; transform: scaleX(1.01611);"> Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR</span></a><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 28.78%; transform: scaleX(1.01611);">). According to the organization's final report: "</span><a href="https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/9/67844.pdf" target="_blank"><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 41.81%; transform: scaleX(1.01963);">The presidential election met most OSCE commitments and other international standards for</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 43.45%; transform: scaleX(1.08271);"> democratic elections [ . . . .</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 66.14%; top: 43.45%; transform: scaleX(1.07474);">] The</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 74.17%; top: 43.45%;"> </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 75.29%; top: 43.45%; transform: scaleX(0.998212);">process</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 80.81%; top: 43.45%;"> </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 81.92%; top: 43.45%; transform: scaleX(0.994841);">was</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 45.1%; transform: scaleX(1.07015);"> transparent and offered voters a genuine choice between candidates representing diverse</span></a><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 46.73%; transform: scaleX(1.01024);"><a href="https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/9/67844.pdf" target="_blank"> political views.</a>"</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">2. In 2013, President Yanucovitch pursued a trade agreement with the EU but pulled out of the negotiations before it was signed.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">3. Demonstrations began in Maidan Square in reaction to the news that the trade agreement would not be signed. Demonstrations continued for months and eventually became violent. Over 100 people were killed. President Yanucovitch fled the country in February 2014 for exile in Russia.<br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">4. In February 2014, Russian forces seized control of Crimea. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">5. In May 2014, Petro Poroshenco was elected President of Ukraine and signed the EU trade agreement June 2014.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">6. In 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky was elected President of Ukraine, winning 73.22% of the vote over the incumbent Poroshenco with 24.45% of the vote. Later Poroshenco had to flee the country accused of corruption and treason.</span></span><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">7. In February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In this selection of facts, I have dutifully avoided any claim which might be contested. Recently I came upon this web site which offers a breakdown of election results in Ukraine. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.electoralgeography.com/new/en/countries/u/ukraine/ukraine-presidential-election-2010.html " target="_blank">https://www.electoralgeography.com/new/en/countries/u/ukraine/ukraine-presidential-election-2010.html </a><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Here is a breakdown of the 2010 election results in which Victor Yanucovitch won the presidency. I invite you to consider the names of the areas where Yanucovitch had the greatest support. If you have been following the news on the war in Ukraine, I invite you to compare the sites where battles are being waged with the areas where Yanucovitch had his strongest democratic support.</span></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinwtxgNXSx-CwzNkYIVsVdUa2PoxlH3P0U1xsfREBP6wh9wRAHxhmJlGgzGJ4wJ4RuD5H1DB9G7-0K6ilfef87ZLryt9L5socBC_aMq-bKGD5xbE-qNeSbrID9Ar861XpRJhEXeSD9AYwfoNFqP4XRDF4pdZM3DWJvsKspi5UpMzFzsPzhq4rmBtGTCg/s778/Screen%20Shot%202023-02-08%20at%2010.17.02%20AM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="778" data-original-width="377" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinwtxgNXSx-CwzNkYIVsVdUa2PoxlH3P0U1xsfREBP6wh9wRAHxhmJlGgzGJ4wJ4RuD5H1DB9G7-0K6ilfef87ZLryt9L5socBC_aMq-bKGD5xbE-qNeSbrID9Ar861XpRJhEXeSD9AYwfoNFqP4XRDF4pdZM3DWJvsKspi5UpMzFzsPzhq4rmBtGTCg/s16000/Screen%20Shot%202023-02-08%20at%2010.17.02%20AM.png" /></a></div><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> Note, for example, these particular regions where Yanucovitch had strong democratic support and battles are now being waged.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Crimea: <span> </span><span> </span>78.24%</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Donetsk:<span> <span> <span> </span>90.44%</span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Luhansk:<span> </span><span> <span> </span></span>88.96%</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Kherson: <span> </span><span> </span>59.98% </span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Odessa:<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>74.14%</span></span></span></p><p><span><span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Zaporizhzhia:<span> </span>71.50%</span></span><br /></span></span></p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoT60ljyfK3qkynIJfUfrcCfGYVRHoXXkCQNqyplaF6AXwmbOJrA50biR6IWcsVq4YWhfAjDDyX7SIkTxGCh71F9UMeMWmt1r3Po2G1RVieLVEIqtDY0xMwaq9A96unlzvvUGOQA2icxwkaIlLBZpnbnHdi7O90SzPJbZd3SjpoNEtW1hZSl2Y-pGczw/s1280/_126246821_ukraine_invasion_south_map-nc.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="974" data-original-width="1280" height="486" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoT60ljyfK3qkynIJfUfrcCfGYVRHoXXkCQNqyplaF6AXwmbOJrA50biR6IWcsVq4YWhfAjDDyX7SIkTxGCh71F9UMeMWmt1r3Po2G1RVieLVEIqtDY0xMwaq9A96unlzvvUGOQA2icxwkaIlLBZpnbnHdi7O90SzPJbZd3SjpoNEtW1hZSl2Y-pGczw/w640-h486/_126246821_ukraine_invasion_south_map-nc.png" width="640" /></a></div><p><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> Yanucovitch's opponent in the presidential run-off, <span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 17.33%; transform: scaleX(1.04567);">Yulia Tymoshenko of the All-Ukrainian Union – Motherland Party, challenged the results but her complaints were eventually withdrawn. The
</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 15.14%; top: 28.78%; transform: scaleX(1.01611);">OSCE/ODIHR report noted that "</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 15.14%; top: 17.33%; transform: scaleX(0.999859);">During both rounds, Ms. Tymoshenko misused administrative resources for campaigning, thus</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 15.14%; top: 18.96%; transform: scaleX(1.05641);"> blurring the line between her roles as candidate and state official and skewing the playing</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 15.14%; top: 20.6%; transform: scaleX(1.09641);"> field in her favour." The report also points out that</span></span></span></p><p><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-family: serif; font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 20.6%; transform: scaleX(1.09641);"></span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-family: serif; font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 10.77%; transform: scaleX(1.02112);"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 15.14%; top: 10.77%; transform: scaleX(1.02112);">In the most recent census, 67.5 per cent of the population declared Ukrainian as their mother</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 15.14%; top: 12.4%; transform: scaleX(1.10202);"> tongue, while 29.6 per cent named Russian. As official voter information and election</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 15.14%; top: 14.04%; transform: scaleX(1.0474);"> material was available only in Ukrainian, an insufficient command of Ukrainian may have</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 15.14%; top: 15.67%; transform: scaleX(1.00403);"> formed an obstacle for minority voters to gain full access to election related information.</span></span></span></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Nonetheless, Viktor Yanucovitch of the Party of Regions eventually won the democratic vote, and held office until he was overthrown in 2014 and the war began.<br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Ironically, in his White House memoir, John Bolton claims that "The State Department didn't want me to meet with Tymoshenko separately because they thought she was too close to Russia [. . . .]" (448 The Room Where It Happened).<br /></span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 15.14%; top: 15.67%; transform: scaleX(1.00403);"></span></span></span><p></p><p><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-family: serif; font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 28.78%; transform: scaleX(1.01611);"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-size: medium; left: 15.14%; top: 28.78%; transform: scaleX(1.01611);"> </span></span></p><p><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-family: serif; font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 28.78%; transform: scaleX(1.01611);"> </span></p><p><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-family: serif; font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 28.78%; transform: scaleX(1.01611);"> </span></p><p><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-family: serif; font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 28.78%; transform: scaleX(1.01611);"> </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-family: serif; font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 28.78%; transform: scaleX(1.01611);"></span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="font-family: serif; font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*11.28px); left: 15.14%; top: 17.33%; transform: scaleX(1.04567);"></span></p><p></p><p></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-31713634025931003102023-01-04T12:42:00.003-08:002023-01-21T05:15:09.371-08:00USA-Russia Prisoner Swap: Where's the Canadian Outrage?<h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Where's the Canadian outrage? </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The USA has completed the prisoner swap of Brittney Griner, the American basketball player, for Viktor Bout, the Russian arms dealer. I was delighted to see Brittney returned home. But where's the Canadian outrage? Remember when the "Two [Canadian] Michaels" were in a Chinese prison and our Prime Minister announced that prisoner exchanges were unacceptable, immoral and dangerous. The Canadian media reported that the great majority of Canadians (72% in fact) agreed with the Prime Minister. So why aren't the Prime Minister, the government, the media and those millions of Canadians protesting against this unacceptable, immoral and dangerous exchange of prisoners between Russia and the USA?</span></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="321" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f8o7GCkjcsA" width="386" youtube-src-id="f8o7GCkjcsA"></iframe></div> <p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Who's Calling the shots? </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">There are many lessons for us Canadians to learn from this comparison of cases. The one I would point out: before the Government of Canada asks "how high?" we should at least inquire about who exactly is telling us to "jump!"</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Protests against the Russia-USA prisoner swap </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Griner-Bout exchange is being <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/09/us/politics/griner-blowback.html" target="_blank">protested by right-wing conservatives in the USA</a>. These protestants point out that the reason the US moved so quickly to propose and arrange a prisoner swap with Russia is that Griner--a woman, a Black women, a lesbian, a married lesbian, etc--tics so many of the boxes in the Democratic agenda. They are not wrong. The fact that the Democrats chose not to negotiate the release of Paul Whelan, an American former marine who has been incarcerated in a Russian prison for four years on charges of espionage, castes the political basis of the Griner decision in sharp relief.</span></span></p><h3 class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Who Was responsible for Canada's arresting the Huawei CFO?</span></span><br /></h3><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Why should Canadians care? Our compliance in arresting and holding Meng Wanzhou on behalf of the USA while the "two Michaels" languished in prison for almost three years appears even more ridiculous when we see how the US government moved quickly to arrange a prisoner exchange when political party popularity was in play--not to mention that the US has dismissed all charges against Meng without penalty. If our elected leaders had seriously asked "why arrest Meng?" (as they are required by law to do), they would have eventually arrived at the question of "who exactly is asking?" I have repeatedly <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2019/07/canadian-politicians-were-caught-like.html" target="_blank">pointed the finger at Richard Donaghue</a> because he was the public face of the arrest and extradition request. Thanks to the <i>Wall Street Journal</i> exposé, </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"<a href="Inside the Secret Prisoner Swap That Splintered the U.S. and China" target="_blank">Inside the Secret Prisoner Swap That Splintered the U.S. and China</a>," we now know who was behind the half-baked scheme to arrest the Huawei CFO: John Bolton.</span></span></p><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyivmFpXNH2fOjUN_zndrVl1S17qxFj6Ovi2U7rcAbW_iwwoOhMXK_L04r6OsQlZl-hJjqq6yjt9ladEW1qjD303NQm9e_R_I4F3TIbJ4MB4y2-ldAgOBly-iwuz5Z0UyH-VD6_apuC7kIbMQ0MPS2Qhu0Oxejlhp-Fx7rYyOOv_TZan3QseMnvt_A0Q/s320/The_Room_Where_It_Happened_-_cover.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="212" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyivmFpXNH2fOjUN_zndrVl1S17qxFj6Ovi2U7rcAbW_iwwoOhMXK_L04r6OsQlZl-hJjqq6yjt9ladEW1qjD303NQm9e_R_I4F3TIbJ4MB4y2-ldAgOBly-iwuz5Z0UyH-VD6_apuC7kIbMQ0MPS2Qhu0Oxejlhp-Fx7rYyOOv_TZan3QseMnvt_A0Q/s1600/The_Room_Where_It_Happened_-_cover.jpg" width="212" /></a></span></span></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>President Trump asks the question</span></span></span></h3><p></p><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>As reported in the <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, based on testimony of witnesses, six days after Meng was arrested in Canada, President Trump turned on Bolton and asked "<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-china-meng-kovrig-spavor-prisoner-swap-11666877779" target="_blank">Why did you arrest Meng</a>?" This question says it all. Bolton describes the December 7 episode in his White House memoir but leaves out this question and anything else which shows his direct responsibility. From his memoir, we now know with certainty Bolton lied to the <i>Guardian</i> (6 December 2018) when </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>he "<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/06/john-bolton-huawei-cfo-meng-wanzhou-arrest-extradition-us" target="_blank">said he was not sure if Trump knew of the arrest in Canada when the president sat down to a </a><a data-link-name="in body link" href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/06/john-bolton-huawei-cfo-meng-wanzhou-arrest-extradition-us" target="_blank">steak dinner</a><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/06/john-bolton-huawei-cfo-meng-wanzhou-arrest-extradition-us" target="_blank"> with China’s Xi Jinping in Buenos Aire</a>." In the memoir, Bolton describes making a conscious decision not to inform the President and suggests Trump remained uninformed until "the implications of the arrest spread through the media" (305).</span></span></span></p><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKpL3dKuMiBYM8NiRTw--zMK8c_UPXTLJpLCMOmTqKmzOJPLNNL6SxPSNNNVLEV0K6bj6SjLLqKJzLhjtorFLXupEyNEsxdQj9YmfJxIG0RIJ-7pkoh_ldYrg4l0kY1rPRTm0RUmjZ4OivgZ0C9gL6k4Wczw8Tl1T7no_8v0dr1pfvIqjhPYub4C-K2g/s900/landscape.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKpL3dKuMiBYM8NiRTw--zMK8c_UPXTLJpLCMOmTqKmzOJPLNNL6SxPSNNNVLEV0K6bj6SjLLqKJzLhjtorFLXupEyNEsxdQj9YmfJxIG0RIJ-7pkoh_ldYrg4l0kY1rPRTm0RUmjZ4OivgZ0C9gL6k4Wczw8Tl1T7no_8v0dr1pfvIqjhPYub4C-K2g/w400-h266/landscape.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></span></div><p></p><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span class="photo-inset-caption" style="border-color: rgb(176, 69, 108);"></span></p><blockquote><span class="photo-inset-caption" style="border-color: rgb(176, 69, 108);">President
Donald Trump, right, national security adviser John Bolton, second from
right, and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, far left, having dinner on Dec.
1, 2018, at a G-20 summit in Buenos Aires.
</span>
<span class="photo-inset-credit">
KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span><p></p><h3 class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"World Peace" <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Bolton claims that "my contribution to world peace was suggesting that Xi and Trump, each accompanied by seven aids, have dinner on December 1" (296). Anyone familiar with the memoir will recognize that Bolton's use of the expression "world peace" was dripping with sarcasm. And, of course, in arranging for Meng to be arrested the same day as the dinner, Bolton was undermining any glimmer of "world peace" that the meeting might produce. <i>The Room Where It Happened</i> (a title <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WySzEXKUSZw" target="_blank">borrowed from the musical Hamilton</a>) is a long list of pathways to "world peace" which Bolton opposed and/or obstructed: Paris Climate Accords, INF Treaty, the Law of the Sea Convention, the Treaty on Open Skies, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, Iran nuclear deal, the International Criminal Court, UN Human Rights Commission, South Korea's initiative for Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong-un to meet in order to end the Korean War now in its 70th year, meetings between Trump and Putin, Trump and Xi, Trump and Erdogan, entente with Cuba, Venezuela or Nicaragua, military withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan, etc, etc. <br /></span></span></p><h3 class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Bolton and Trudeau share a doctrine<br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">To his credit Bolton has remained consistent in voicing opposition to the Griner-Bout prisoner exchange and all prisoner exchanges. The Bolton doctrine is the same argument presented by <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-meng-wanzhou-prisoner-1.5626744" target="_blank">PM Justin Trudeau in his press conference 20 June 2020</a>. (In the press conference, the PM repeated two basic lies which went unchallenged: that extradition is an "independent judicial" process and the US-Canada treaty request created an "obligation" to hold Meng.)<br /></span></span></p><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="392" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Eugucs--TlM" width="471" youtube-src-id="Eugucs--TlM"></iframe></span></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span><p></p><h3 class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Canada's about turn: how far will we follow anti-China hawks? <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">If Bolton is our "Pied Piper," it's time we Canadians grow up fast and think twice before following the rat catcher into his cave. For fifty years--from Pierre Trudeau to Justin Trudeau, with Clark, Mulroney and Harper following along in between--there was an evolving, three-steps-forward-two-steps-back collaboration between Canada and China. Suddenly one day, we arrested Meng Wanzhou, then China arrested the two Michaels, and we have been in a cold war with our second-largest trading partner ever since. That cold war has been heating up fast as the Canadian government has announced an increase of two billion dollars in military spending in the Indio-Pacific, and a plan to confront China by increasing "<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/canada-shifts-on-china-to-build-credibility-with-allies-11672339249" target="_blank">t</a></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/canada-shifts-on-china-to-build-credibility-with-allies-11672339249" target="_blank">he number of naval frigates deployed in the region</a>."</span></span></p><h3 class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What if we had obeyed the Canadian Extradition Act and released Meng? <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/canada-shifts-on-china-to-build-credibility-with-allies-11672339249" target="_blank">As pointed out in the </a><i><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/canada-shifts-on-china-to-build-credibility-with-allies-11672339249" target="_blank">WSJ</a>, </i>Justin Trudeau came to power with a promise of closer ties with China. In 2017, the Trudeau government was on the verge of a Canada-China free-trade agreement. The question I ask myself and you, dear reader: "<i>If Canada hadn't fallen for Bolton's ploy and arrested Meng in 2018, would we still be saber-rattling--to the tune of two billion dollars--against China today</i>?" <br /></span></span></p><h3 class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What Does "law-abiding" mean? <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">We might delude ourselves that we have impressed the world with how law-abiding we are, except that anyone who bothers to check would know we refused to follow or even acknowledge Canadian law in holding Meng. As reported by the <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, the Chinese were quick to point out to the Canadian delegation: "<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-china-meng-kovrig-spavor-prisoner-swap-11666877779" target="_blank">You don't even know your own laws</a>." <i>Ouch</i>.</span></span></p><h3 class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Double Ouch <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>When Justin Trudeau asked for a meeting with Xi Jingpin, he was told: </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">"<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-china-meng-kovrig-spavor-prisoner-swap-11666877779" target="_blank">It would breach protocol for Mr. Xi, China’s head of state, to speak with Mr. Trudeau, merely the head of government of Canada, whose head of state was Queen Elizabeth II</a>." <i>Double ouch!</i></span></span></p><h3 class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Triple Ouch </span></span><br /></h3><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">When Canada's Ambassador Barton met with representatives of the Chinese Foreign Ministry he was told: "<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-china-meng-kovrig-spavor-prisoner-swap-11666877779" target="_blank">You are lapdogs of the United States</a>." Unfortunately, the Canadian government had shown a great willingness to sacrifice Canadians for what was exclusively a US/Bolton agenda offering no benefit to Canada.</span></span></p><h3 class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">At Least we could depend on US support! (Not)! <br /></span></span></h3><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Perhaps the darkest irony of the "<a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2022/01/what-have-we-learned-from-meng.html" target="_blank">catastrofarse</a>": when PM Trudeau approached the US President in February 2021 about the "two Michaels," Biden replied “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-china-meng-kovrig-spavor-prisoner-swap-11666877779" target="_blank">I will not interfere with the judicial process</a>”--the same fallacious justification for inaction that Trudeau himself had been using for two years.</span></span></p><h3 class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">There Is a lesson to be learned </span></span><br /></h3><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">When discussing the US efforts to curtail Huawei, which he claimed"wasn't a company but an arm of China's intelligence services" (305), Bolton mentions that "Former Prime Minister Jean Cretien, never a friend of the US, was arguing that Canada should simply not abide by our extradition treaty" (307-8). Given the context and the source, "never a friend of the US" is a ringing endorsement. In 2003, Prime Minister Jean Cretien kept Canada out of the misguided, malign war in Iraq even as the USA, Opposition Leader Stephen Harper, and even members of the Liberal Party attempted to drag us into it. Herein lies the lesson. Prime Minister Cretien, Defense Minister John McCallum, and NDP Leader Jack Layton--all stood in opposition to George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq and kept Canada out of a war which should never should have happened. Sometimes it's possible to act like an independent, sovereign nation and say "no," without a loss of respect and friendship.</span></span><br /></p><p class="css-1lvqw7f-StyledHeadline e1ipbpvp0" style="text-align: left;"><i> </i></p><br /><p> </p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-13660090885421598962022-12-02T09:43:00.003-08:002022-12-05T06:39:28.890-08:00Do Right and Left Mean Anything Anymore?<h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Meanings of Words change </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The meanings of words change over time. Charting those changes of meaning has been the goal of the <i>Oxford English Dictionary</i> since it's inception in 1755. Being aware of how the meanings of words are constructed and reconstructed over time is <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2017/11/deconstruction-and-ways-of-talking.html" target="_blank">what Jacques Derrida called "deconstruction."</a> I have leaned hard on the notions of "right wing" versus "left wing" in my writing. (See, for example, <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2019/01/liberal-chaos-or-challenge-of-doing.html" target="_blank">Liberal Entropy: The Challenge of Doing Nothing</a>.) </span></span><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"When You think you right . . . "</span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Reading Tara Henley, in particular her substack article <a href="https://open.substack.com/pub/tarahenley/p/when-you-think-youre-right-even-if?r=15kd2p&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email " target="_blank">"When You Think You're Right even if You're Wrong</a>," I am troubled by the short-comings of the right-left binary, as is she apparently. I'm supposed to be a left-leaning liberal and she often sounds like a conservative, so it is disconcerting to discover how frequently I agree with her. </span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Etymology of left and right wing </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Just a quick reminder: <a href="https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-political-labels-left-wing-and-right-wing-originate" target="_blank">the expressions date to the period immediately after the French Revolution (1789)</a> and referred to where representatives sat in the National Assembly. Monarchist who tended to be well-to-do traditionalists sat to the right of the Speaker; anti-royalist revolutionaries representing the proletariat sat to the left. As time has marched on, the binary has been recast as Conservative versus Liberal, Republican versus Democrat, even Capitalist versus Socialist, though none of these binaries are exactly equivalent. </span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFy4gxnmX400_NW2IOEtsBgONHDb-qUiJqu3K9VEXMUsjYSj9dcD9KbooZwVc1Q--HYtkYVsSp3TSX3SgUsS8o4u9mYrzRbX0uN69Npdi9zCg-EgxYfIBwpsNBgLo0dvc4IROrqfXoTx47vHNSpRI1dh_KW7jcTy9ol_HPsMTQrPLEviqsMVAEPg4dcQ/s1400/1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="661" data-original-width="1400" height="189" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFy4gxnmX400_NW2IOEtsBgONHDb-qUiJqu3K9VEXMUsjYSj9dcD9KbooZwVc1Q--HYtkYVsSp3TSX3SgUsS8o4u9mYrzRbX0uN69Npdi9zCg-EgxYfIBwpsNBgLo0dvc4IROrqfXoTx47vHNSpRI1dh_KW7jcTy9ol_HPsMTQrPLEviqsMVAEPg4dcQ/w450-h189/1.jpg" width="450" /></a></div><br /><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Remember when opposing free trade meant you were a left-wing radical?</span></span><br /></h3><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdrF1SfQoeZoDc4Agm25uFC19GEVp2uXLypWOQCqumlM6pSHkEnM8h3C7cqApMzTtS07JCCxUXnejAmgWbiQKpc9YbkaW3Rr1XIMX5PVG4QkXwnYYgQ_g9DZK4AqpwkkVJ6Mph4x2RktFX-yM3Kj36KLIO791VllLOjpAaewOG5lbEWUfLCY6kvL37FQ/s1400/6.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="972" data-original-width="1400" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdrF1SfQoeZoDc4Agm25uFC19GEVp2uXLypWOQCqumlM6pSHkEnM8h3C7cqApMzTtS07JCCxUXnejAmgWbiQKpc9YbkaW3Rr1XIMX5PVG4QkXwnYYgQ_g9DZK4AqpwkkVJ6Mph4x2RktFX-yM3Kj36KLIO791VllLOjpAaewOG5lbEWUfLCY6kvL37FQ/s320/6.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What
counts as left or right keeps shifting. Remember when opposing a
free-trade deal meant you were a left-wing radical? (The images are
from protests against the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, April
2001. See also <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2022/11/mythologizing-conflict-of-solitudes-and.html" target="_blank">The Erasure of the Left</a>.)
In 2015, Donald Trump, a right-wing Republican, began campaigning
against free-trade deals which won over the casualties of globalization,
the American working and lower middle class. Eventually, even Hilary
Clinton and Barack Obama began to back away from their fulsome support
of free trade.</span></span> <br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What Has gone awry with the left-right binary? </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The real problem in recent years has been the floundering attempts to squeeze every political issue into the left-right binary. The issues of the day simply do not fit the left-right dichotomy. Vaccine mandates, Tara Henley's particular hobby horse, are a case in point. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">When Pierre Poilievre, Canada's Conservative Party Prime Minister in waiting, rushed to a photo-op with the anti-mandate "Freedom Convoy" as it headed to Ottawa, I thought he had kissed his political career good-bye. The convoy managed to arouse a great deal of both public antipathy and fractious support, but the Conservative politician's public embrace of a <i>prima facie</i> working-class protest seemed contradictory if not hypocritical. Nonetheless, I remained mindful of Steve Bannon's claim that the Bernie Sanders constituency and the Donald Trump constituency were the same working and lower middle-class voters. Even David Graeber, a card-carrying member of the left if there ever was one, writes:</span></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Ultimately, the more liberal members of this professional-managerial elite became the social base for what came to pass as “left-wing” political parties, as actual working-class organizations like trade unions were cast into the wilderness (The Utopia of Rules p. 20). </span></span></blockquote><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3aVgz7xPTVWTKAS_57z3jOB3b7Jc05P_OiprAzr6NDO1wzjOgFVTNHtQDbk71Y7xfddO4RhH1EgJvJKFivWabyPkMVb9UV6qn4yuheQ0ZCvKRFtntX3QD6zUNj1u_N0HL5Dea8qkrPxRQ07NwYqHSUtQFXJVCaX8vPNY0hWA8gKg807iY5l-dpWpziQ/s334/The_Utopia_of_Rules.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="334" data-original-width="220" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3aVgz7xPTVWTKAS_57z3jOB3b7Jc05P_OiprAzr6NDO1wzjOgFVTNHtQDbk71Y7xfddO4RhH1EgJvJKFivWabyPkMVb9UV6qn4yuheQ0ZCvKRFtntX3QD6zUNj1u_N0HL5Dea8qkrPxRQ07NwYqHSUtQFXJVCaX8vPNY0hWA8gKg807iY5l-dpWpziQ/s320/The_Utopia_of_Rules.jpg" width="211" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Consequently: </span></span></p><p></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><blockquote>The actual working class, who bore a traditional loathing for such characters, either dropped out of politics entirely, or were increasingly reduced to casting protest votes for the radical Right (The Utopia of Rules p. 21). </blockquote></span></span></blockquote><h3 style="text-align: left;"> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Left-wing in Canada</span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">When I was working on a local NDP campaign (New Democratic Party; i.e., what passes for "left wing" in Canada), I was struck to learn that our greatest support (number of votes) came from the most upper-crust neighbourhood in the riding. It made sense to me that "enlightened" professionals would vote for the left, for equality and social justice but, at the same time, it seemed the party whose <i>raison d'être</i> was to represent the working class was abandoning and/or being abandoned by that cohort of voters.</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"Luxury Beliefs" </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Rob Henderson (another Tara Henley guest) coined the expression "<a href="https://tarahenley.substack.com/p/luxury-beliefs?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share#details" target="_blank">luxury beliefs</a>" meaning "<span><a href="https://tarahenley.substack.com/p/luxury-beliefs?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share#details" target="_blank">ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class, while often inflicting costs on the lower classes</a>." Henderson surmises that upper-class elites while enjoying wealth and status also want to signal that they are "sophisticated member[s] of the educated class." As an example he cites a conversation with a middle-class classmate who was raised in a stable home and planned to marry herself but claimed that "</span><span><a href="https://tarahenley.substack.com/p/luxury-beliefs?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share#details" target="_blank">monogamy and marriage are outdated [....] oppressive patriarchal institutions</a>.” </span></span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span><span style="font-size: medium;">Causes of Poverty</span></span> </span><br /></span></h3><p><span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I found his example telling. When I was preparing a lecture on <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2020/03/the-grapes-of-wrath.html" target="_blank">The Grapes of Wrath</a>, I discovered repeated claims that a significant cause of poverty was marriage breakdown. It was immediately obvious to me that while marriage and family were, first and foremost, emotional and social bonds, the family is also an economic union. Go looking for who exactly is dealing with poverty and chances are you will discover single mothers and the children of fatherless households. "It takes a village to raise a child" is a nice idea, but these days few of us live in villages. In my experience, two parents is the minimal requirement for raising a child, and a supplementary army of siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends and neighbours is helpful if not essential. However, "<a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2014/03/critical-thinking-skills-and-family.html" target="_blank">family values</a>," (as I've discussed elsewhere) remains a quintessentially "right wing" expression.</span></span><br /></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Privileged Values </span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A corollary to Henderson's "luxury beliefs" are what I would call "privileged values." (See <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2021/07/virtues-vices-and-values.html" target="_blank">Virtues, Vices and Values</a>.) Both the detractors and the supporters of woke and cancel culture are, above all, proof that we live in the age of moral superiority. Today, everyone thinks of themselves as morally superior and behaves or at least vocalizes accordingly. The great paradox of moral superiority is that people who feel morally superior self-license to act immorally at every turn. In other words, if you think you're one "the good guys," then you're likely to think that whatever you do is "good"--no matter how amoral, immoral or morally challenged it is. And the illusion is easier to maintain if your privileged circumstances insulate you from the challenges, costs, consequences and contradictions of your morally superiority.</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">John Bolton versus David Graeber</span></span><br /></h3><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv1nIxCCbCHxrNlXE81uM3T0In-P7R4uNpPIblu8QAuaOgWIHr2IcbpHqoSpEhZLVXoRO2ubBbJjY6nGI9NkuRNZNHfJR5THmLcT7IKJ8ydgL-wfYiXzw6UILkbCta7HAdRLEibGVVFo0-hKvmGtzj1aCKlS9ppv6alhDVf_JydVrorRVSjl-gvi5I0A/s332/The_Room_Where_It_Happened_-_cover.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="332" data-original-width="220" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv1nIxCCbCHxrNlXE81uM3T0In-P7R4uNpPIblu8QAuaOgWIHr2IcbpHqoSpEhZLVXoRO2ubBbJjY6nGI9NkuRNZNHfJR5THmLcT7IKJ8ydgL-wfYiXzw6UILkbCta7HAdRLEibGVVFo0-hKvmGtzj1aCKlS9ppv6alhDVf_JydVrorRVSjl-gvi5I0A/s320/The_Room_Where_It_Happened_-_cover.jpg" width="212" /></a></div><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Perusing John Bolton's <i>The Room Where It Happened</i> and David Graeber's <i>The Utopia of Rules</i>, it is fascinating to read a right-wing hawk and a left-wing dove complaining about the same thing: bureaucracy. Graeber's thesis is that bureaucracy is sustained by an underlying threat of violence. Bolton complains that bureaucracy prevents him from exercising the threats of violence which are his stock and trade. As Donald Trump once quipped, "If I listened to John Bolton, we would have had World War Six by now." In Bolton's mindset, "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3_0GqPvr4U" target="_blank">Give Peace a Chance</a>" is Chinese propaganda. Despite my having decried and derided bureaucracy most of my working life (see, for example, <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2016/05/this-professor-should-be-fired-for.html" target="_blank">This Professor Should Be Fired</a>), reading Graeber and Bolton I came away thinking "<i>Thank gawd for bureaucracy!</i>"</span></span> </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Bureaucracy or the alternative </span></span><br /></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">To cannibalize a bromide about democracy, bureaucracy may be imperfect,
but it's better than all the alternatives. Bureaucracy protects us
from left-wing anarchy and right-wing corruption. The important point
here is that bureaucracy is neither innately left wing nor innately
right wing. In specific cases, bureaucracy may tilt left or right, which
is why this binary still matters. </span></span><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"On Baggage, Bureaucracy and Brokenness"</span></span> <br /></h3><p> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">However, in her most recent newsletter "<a href="https://open.substack.com/pub/tarahenley/p/weekend-reads-the-madness-of-modern?r=15kd2p&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email" target="_blank">On Baggage, Bureaucracy and Brokenness,</a>" Tara Henley references Alana Newhouse's claim that</span></span><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">[ . . .] the most vital debate in contemporary America is not between liberalism
and conservatism. But rather, it is “between those who believe there is
something fundamentally broken in America, and that it’s an emergency,
and those who do not.”</span></span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The examples are numerous: lost baggage, the bureaucratic run-around, the broken health-care system. We've all been there. Personally, every time I encounter these screw-ups, I imagine a left-right binary. Someone is profiting from these screw-ups: the underfunded health-care system allowing the super-wealthy to remain under-taxed, the telecom giants which deliberately send you from one automated "help line" to another intending that you will give up on requesting service or getting a response to your complaint, the airline company paying minimum wage to part-time baggage handlers.</span></span><br /></p><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Problem of perseverance</span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Henley's observations about "perseverance" in "<a href="https://open.substack.com/pub/tarahenley/p/when-you-think-youre-right-even-if?r=15kd2p&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email " target="_blank">When You Think You're Right even if You're Wrong</a>" cut close to home. My cognitive bias always leans left, so I must admit that when an issue seems left-leaning, I'm likely to get onboard. And, of course, I always think I'm right, even when the evidence challenges my thinking. I believe in the left-right binary, but when, where and how the binary applies, and perhaps more importantly, when it doesn't apply--these are the real questions. The problem is when the binary is applied too quickly and easily, too dogmatically, too broadly, too loosely. In short, the problem is when the binary becomes a replacement for thinking rather than a way of thinking.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wCCfc2vAuDU" width="320" youtube-src-id="wCCfc2vAuDU"></iframe></span></span></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /> </span></span><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-62589747698072608442022-11-19T08:30:00.002-08:002022-11-20T04:21:15.236-08:00Mythologizing a Conflict of Solitudes and the Erasure of the Left<h2 style="text-align: left;">Mythologizing a Conflict of Solitudes and the Erasure of the Left<br /></h2><p style="text-align: left;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>Jay Sour<br /> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><i>Université Laval</i><br /> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>May 26, 2001<br /><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Competing Dramatic narratives</span></span> </h3><p>The objective of this presentation is a discussion of competing dramatic narratives, in fact, melodramas, of Canadian history: a conflict between English and French solitudes on one hand, and a political struggle opposing the proletariat and a capitalist hegemony on the other. Although neither of these binaries is an adequate structure for the re-telling of Canadian history, 19th century melodrama has proven to be the dominant narrative structure within which the popular media typically constructs contemporary news stories. This attempt to construct the news and history as a display of strict moral justice, in which a good and innocent protagonist is seen to be oppressed by a stereotypically evil antagonist, has the effect that stories become “news,” are brought to public awareness and general consciousness, because they can be presented in this form. Narratives are further sustained and gain longevity because they can be presented in terms of the stock features of melodrama: mounting suspense, hidden documents revealed, unexpected reversals, the need for last minute rescues, and even occasional comic relief. Over time these melodramas become the dominant myths and, as a result, all attempts to tell the story of Canadian historical events are forced to locate themselves in relation to these established binaries in order to have an audience.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Summit of the Americas, April 2001</span></span></h3><p> My original intention for this presentation was to tease out this competition of narratives from a number of Canadian plays and films, including evidence which has emerged from their productions and receptions. However, since I first proposed this topic last November, two very obvious examples of what I had intended to “reveal” have been widely and extensively exposed. The first was the premiere of Pierre Falardeau’s film, entitled <i>Le 15 fevrier, 1839</i>, in which he tells the story of the rebellion of 1837 in Lower Canada. The second was the Summit of the Americas held here in Quebec City in April. <br /> I must confess that as the Summit approached I became convinced that my argument that the Left existed in a state of erasure in Canada would lose all credibility as the growing attention to the protest and the protesters against the summit (a loosely leftist coalition of socialists, feminists, ecologists, nationalists, anarchists, human rights advocates and so on) seemed guaranteed to garner a high profile and visibility. However, as the television editorialist for the news-magazine show, <i>60 Minutes II</i>, commented: “For a week we were shown images of protesters in Quebec, but no-one ever bother to tell us what they were protesting about.” </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG7zgSs7SsY2yfYDtNKipzeQ6mjom6WUjq3i-BLDCwXiEHtd1atpl_gIQFYnmi17ISmoO79jVJVRjXp0nnxwx8dtDcXNnEBZ0EGS0uPo1kgdlDuae0_08-UJxt0Gy4j0-v4oZOs4XrCWPNy3Tq7EOyjK34VSVRj77wFzIzVnu1pW41RyWdO8sz6Pb0kQ/s1400/6.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="972" data-original-width="1400" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG7zgSs7SsY2yfYDtNKipzeQ6mjom6WUjq3i-BLDCwXiEHtd1atpl_gIQFYnmi17ISmoO79jVJVRjXp0nnxwx8dtDcXNnEBZ0EGS0uPo1kgdlDuae0_08-UJxt0Gy4j0-v4oZOs4XrCWPNy3Tq7EOyjK34VSVRj77wFzIzVnu1pW41RyWdO8sz6Pb0kQ/s320/6.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Free Trade and the People's Summit</span></span></h3><p> More striking still was to see Premiere Bernard Landry, whom I have always taken to be a strong advocate of free trade, addressing the People’s Summit and describing free trade as a threat to democracy, human rights, the environment and national sovereignty. In Quebec, the context of his remarks was weeks of media coverage of the debate over Landry’s not having been invited to address the Summit of the Americas, a battle of signs in which signs put up by Quebec officials were taken down and replaced by those of the summit organizers and vice versa, and a controversy over the fact that Landry had addressed a group of delegates to the summit in French when they were English, Spanish and Portuguese speaking. In short even this ostentatious conflict of proletarian and corporate agendas could, in Quebec, be overwritten as a language debate.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Prevailing Myth of "Two Solitudes"</span></span></h3><p> My point in these comments is not to claim that language, culture and politics are mutually exclusive or even separable issues. In fact, the genesis of my interest in this topic was an interview I did, in 1997, with Marianne Ackerman, founder and Artistic Director of Theatre 1774, a company set up to do cross-over, bilingual and bi- and multi-cultural productions in Montreal. When I asked Ackerman if the imminent demise of her company was proof that the myth of two solitudes was still intact, she responded, </p><p></p><blockquote>“Absolutely. There is huge resistance to the truth of how Quebecers live, English and French, which is rather well. On any planetary or historical scale, people here get along well and work together–that’s a fact. That fact cannot be reflected on stage because it flies in the face of two deeply entrenched visions.” </blockquote><p></p><p>The issue I have found myself considering since this interview is not if a conflict of linguistic cultures is allowed to frequently occupy centre stage in the dramas of Canadian and Quebec history and politics--I take this as given--but how and why the dominance of a narrative of conflicting solitudes is maintained. Seemingly the most obvious response is that this narrative serves the interests of nationalist politicians and the sovereignty movement in Quebec, but even this answer is becoming less and less true. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Policing the Myth</span></span></h3><p> In fact, when Ackerman spoke of resistance to her company’s mandate, the institutions she cited were the Centaur Theatre, English Quebec’s main stage, and the <i>Montreal Gazette</i>, the English-language daily. In an NFB film entitled, <i>Breaking a Leg</i>, Theatre 1774's founding and first production, <i>Echo</i>, directed by Robert Lepage, are documented. At the company’s first press conference it was <i>Gazette </i>theatre critic Pat Donnelly who asked the question, in French, “What will the language of the production be?” As the narrator of the documentary film ominously noted, language would return to haunt the production. Robert Lévesque, theatre critic for <i>Le Devoir</i> accused the company of false publicity in using a Francophone director and actors for what turned out to be an English-language production. Pat Donnelly commented that: “If this is what happens when a great French talent crosses over, then maybe separation isn’t such a bad idea.” And in his own defence, Lepage noted that it was not the production, but the absence of French in the production which had been the basis of criticism of the play. In other words, no matter what else might have been said about or learned from the production, all discourses were marginalized, displaced, erased or analogized to the dichotomy of languages, and both English and French critics and the director were drawn into the process. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Why Mythology works</span></span></h3><p> These first examples demonstrate that the reason this mythology is invoked is simply that it is easy. It is an easy means of framing and inflating criticism and offers an equally easy means of deflecting it. Why this should be so is answered in the fact it is a mythology, a pattern of beliefs that is almost automatically accepted, with little inquiry into its truth value. That, of course, is how myth operates. The reception of Pierre Falardeau’s film, <i>Le 15 février, 1839</i> offers a clear example of the further advantages of appealing to this mythology.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>For Love Quebec</i> and <i>Octobre</i><br /></span></span></h3><p> To put my reading, and more to the point, my reaction to the film in full context: in the late 70's <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2016/10/does-average-phd-know-difference.html" target="_blank">The Great Canadian Theatre Company</a> in Ottawa, produced a play called <i>For Love, Quebec</i> by Robin Mathews, in which Mathews portrayed the FLQ Crisis of October, 1970, as a working-class rebellion. The criticism of Mathews' play, at the time, was that in portraying the October crisis as a socialist insurrection he had failed to accurately represent the Quebec situation. Against this background, in 1977, seeing Pierre Falardeau’s film <i>Octobre</i>, which recounts in detail the kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte, I was struck by the similarity between Falardeau’s purportedly highly accurate account of the events and the tenor of the Mathews play. In both cases a Marxist-socialist discourse dominated the dialogue and, in particular, the characters expression of their intentions. Although the existence of an oppressive English hierarchy is noted in the film, within the enclosed environment of the film the political struggle is expressed in a conflict between Pierre Laporte, a well-to-do Francophone Québécois and his captures, a group of working-class men who are also Francophone Québécois. In this instance Falardeau showed a willingness to sublimate the specificities of the Quebec situation and the image of conflicting solitudes to the broader political discourse.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Falardeau's <i>Le 15 février, 1839</i></span></span></h3><p> However, in his most recent film, <i>Le 15 février, 1839</i>, Falardeau conspicuously reverses this tendency. Although the film recounts a number of the events of the Papineau rebellions, it focuses on the imprisonment and executions of a number of <i>les Patriots</i> in 1839. As such it becomes an intense psychological drama. In embracing a melodramatic structure Falardeau overtly constructs l<i>es anglais</i> as the personification of evil. The portrayal of the English as villains is hardly new in Quebec narratives, as William Johnson’s book, <i>Anglophobie: Made in Quebec</i>, extensively documents. Nonetheless, it is surprising that Falardeau would revert to this caricature at this point in time. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Brault's <i>Quand je serai parti, vous vivrez encore</i></span></span></h3><p> In 1999, Michel Brault, a renowned cinematographer and director released a film entitled <i>Quand je serai parti, vous vivrez encore</i> which presented the same historical events (the rebellion and executions) and characters (<i>les Patriots</i>, including the young François-Marie-Thomas Chevalier de Lorimier). Brault, like Falardeau, is a recognized sovereigntist and his 1974 film, <i>Les Ordres</i>, also on the October Crisis and its aftermath has been described as a <i>chef d’oeuvre</i>. In relation to the dominant mythology and to the Falardeau film, Brault’s treatment of 1837 was a breakthrough. The salient elements of this breakthrough were, for example, that Brault afforded a special, sympathetic status the English-speaking Irish, that the Patriots' lawyer, Drummond, is portrayed as a passionate, bilingual advocate of his clients, and Brault’s film included passing acknowledgment that a sister rebellion was taking place in Toronto. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The CBC's <i>A People’s History: Rebellion and Reform (1815 - 1850)</i></span></span></h3><p> The same week that Falardeau’s film was released, the CBC was broadcasting <i>A People’s History: Rebellion and Reform (1815 - 1850)</i>. Interviewed on the television show <i><a class="new" href="https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maisonneuve_%C3%A0_l%27%C3%A9coute&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Maisonneuve à l'écoute (page inexistante)">Maisonneuve à l'écoute</a></i>, Falardeau was categorical that the image presented by CBC that “<i>nous étions tous ensemble était faux</i>” [that is, that the image of the rebellion crossing linguistic and cultural lines was simply false]. Falardeau’s claim was not questioned; he was simply repeating the commonly accepted truths about the rebellions in Lower Canada. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Patriot's Rebellion in fact and fiction</span></span></h3><p> As a parenthesis, I should highlight that in Quebec the Patriots rebellion of 1837 is typically taken as the genesis of the Québécois nationalist movement. For example, in his introduction to <i>Surrealism and Quebec Literature: History of a Cultural Revolution</i>, André G. Bourassa claims: “The voice of our people was first heard in 1837, and this book begins with writings from that year” (xii). Every year, I lead a graduate seminar, which includes a comparison of Rick Salutin and Theatre Passe Muraille’s <i>1837: The Farmers Revolt</i> and Jacques Ferron’s <i>Les Grandes Soleils</i>, which treats the 1837 rebellion in Quebec. English Canadian students are frequently unaware of the 1837 uprisings in Toronto, but for Franco-Québécois the existence of this historical event seems to come as a shock, because, I have surmised, it problematizes the received knowledge of the Quebec rebellions as a conflict in which, to quote at least one of my students, “our ancestors died to protect the French language.” </p><p>In an MA thesis prepared at the <i>Université de Sherbrooke</i> analyzing seven disparate dramatic treatments of the rebellions–<i>Papineau</i> by Louis-Honoré Fréchette (1880), <i>Cérémonial funèbre sur le corps de Jean-Olivier Chénier </i>by Jean-Robert Rémillard (1974), <i>Les Grandes Soleils </i>by Jacques Ferron (1969), <i>1837: The Farmers Revolt</i>, by Rick Salutin and theatre Passe Muraille (1975), “Hero at Hatch’s Mill” by George Salverson (1967), <i>The Patriots</i> by Eric Cross (1955), and <i>At My Heart’s Core</i> by Robertson Davies (1950)–the author, Rod Wilmot, contends that <br /></p><blockquote>In Upper and Lower Canada the sources of trouble were essentially the same: the absence of responsible government and the opportunity this gave a select few to abuse their power. . . . <br /> All the important differences between the two Rebellions stem from the fact that in Lower Canada the struggle for reform had inescapable racial overtones. (8)</blockquote>Wilmot goes on to point out these “racial overtones” would almost immediately come to dominate accounts of the rebellions in Lower Canada. <p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Making of Melodrama</span></span></h3><p> Returning to Falardeau’s most recent film then, <i>Le 15 février, 1939</i> could only maintain its melodramatic structure at the expense of an atavistic interpretation of the historical events and a corresponding vision of <i>les anglais</i> as stock villains. For example, in Falardeau’s portrayal anyone who is identified as English is unable to speak or understand a word of French. This vision of the English garrison certainly contradicts much of the available historical information. In fact, in her play <i>L’Affaire Tartuff, or the Garrison Rehearses Molière</i>, which became the signature piece of Theatre 1774, Marianne Ackerman dramatizes the common practice of the English Garrison in Lower Canada of presenting plays in French. As Jean Béraud observes in <i>350 ans de Théatre au Canada français </i>“<i>si le goût de théâtre s’implanta rapidement et fermement à Montréal, c’est aux soldats de garnison et aux artistes de langue anglaize que nous le devons</i>” (qt in Théâtre Québécois I 31) A number of other historical facts would problematize Falardeau’s interpretation of events including the revolt in Toronto, the <i>Chouayens </i>who were the French-speaking antagonists of <i>les Patriots</i>, and the presence in Lower Canada of a number of English-speaking supporters, including the John Neilson of the Quebec Gazette, and Doctors Wolfred and Robert Nelson who were leaders of the Rebellion. Robert Nelson is the subject of Mary Soderstrom’s book, <i>The Words on the Wall: Lower Canada’s Forgotten Hero of the 1837 Rebellion</i>. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Melodrama Trumps politics</span></span></h3><p> In a television documentary about the promotion of <i>Le 15 février</i>, Falardeau complained about being described by the press as wearing “<i>son costume de revolutionnaire</i>.” Falardeau’s appearance is always stereotypically lefty, unshaven, cigarette butt between his fingers, leather or denim and workman’s plaid. Certainly Falardeau decorates this film with leftist rhetoric. However, when Falardeau introduces a moment into the film in which the melodrama of a French-English conflict might be abandoned in a gesture of working-class solidarity, he uses that moment to reinforce the linguistic and cultural divide. A young English private on guard duty approaches Chevalier de Lorimier to express his sympathy and solidarity. The young Englishman explains that he was in the street and forced to go into service to save his family from starvation, but in Falardeau’s film de Lorimier refuses to acknowledge him. On the scaffold, as the young Englishman is placing the noose around his neck, he pleads with de Lorimier to say something to him. Finally de Lorimier tells him “I’m not afraid anymore. Now it’s your turn to be afraid.” To reinforce the melodramatic structure we subsequently see an English soldier rifle butting one of the condemned men swinging from the gallows in front of the innocent gaze of a little girl who has accompanied her father to the executions to deliver a load of coffins.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i><a class="new" href="https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maisonneuve_%C3%A0_l%27%C3%A9coute&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Maisonneuve à l'écoute (page inexistante)">Maisonneuve à l'écoute</a></i></span></span></h3><p> When de Maisonneuve, the television interviewer, asked about the English private, Falardeau allowed Luc Picard, the actor who play de Lorimier, to respond. Picard, who was obviously concerned in his response, claimed that as an actor he saw de Lorimier’s silence as a way of claiming, of insisting upon, the dignity of his own execution. When de Maisonneuve then asked if this was a correct interpretation, Falardeau grunt, shrugged and finally said “<i>Oui</i>.” Nonetheless, this interaction between the working-class Englishman and the upper-class Frenchman flies in the face of a number of attempts to underline the necessity of solidarity for a left-wing revolution and, for that matter, for the independence of Quebec. Although, as Ric Knowles points out, the reception of David Fennario’s <i>Balconville</i> depended on its “naturalistic, well-made-play structure . . . together with its political softness . . .” and the play is often publicized as a dramatization of the conflict between French and English, the clear intent of the drama is to argue for the necessity of working-class solidarity across linguistic lines. In Ferron’s <i>Les Grandes Soleils</i>, which uses the events of 1837 in the presentation of a magical fertility ritual, the future of Quebec is seen to depend on the fecundity of Elizabeth Smith who is from England and the only woman in the play. She is described as “<i>une petite anglaise qu’on a enquébecquoisée</i>” and is portrayed as an ardent Quebec nationalist. In Ferron’s vision the future of Quebec depends on the creation of a community out of all the elements of its diversity.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Embracing the Myth in English Canada</span></span></h3><p> When Falardeau arranged a press conference in Ottawa in anticipation of the premiere of <i>Le 15 février</i>, a television camera crew accompanied him to document the fact that no-one from the English press showed up. If we can claim that a melodrama of English-French conflict will overshadow other forms of political and historical dramatization in Quebec, the other side of the coin is that any attempt to present Quebec history as a left-wing struggle is equally resisted in English Canada. My conjecture at this point, an intuitive conclusion if you will, is that left-wing theses have been resisted in Quebec because they put into question the myth of conflicting solitudes, and they are rejected in English Canada because they give credibility to the image of the Québécois struggling against the oppression of the English.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Reception and Rejection</span></span></h3><p> I take the reception of Robin Mathews’ <i>For Love, Quebec</i> as one example of the latter. And the protracted story of the Vancouver Playhouse’s refusal to present George Ryga’s <i>Captives of the Faceless Drummer</i> in 1970 and the consequent departure of David Gardner as artistic director as another. Within Quebec, when David Fennario presented his play <i>The Death of René Lévesque</i> at Centaur in 1990, it was booed on opening night. The play presents a cogent argument that René Lévesque and the <i>Parti Québécois</i> came to power with a left-wing agenda but swung to the right once in power. Robert Lévesque’s vitriolic panning of the play was published on the front page of the Montreal daily <i>Le Devoir</i>. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Resistance to History: Paul Almond's <i>For the Record</i></span></span></h3><p> The resistance to understanding or abstracting the history of Canada in relation to Quebec as anything other than the already taken for granted conflict of solitudes puts at risk our ability to read the past and to fathom the future. In 1979, director Paul Almond produced a television film for the CBC’s <i>For the Record</i> series in which an Ontario engineer accidentally discovers a Canadian military plan to invade Quebec. In order to protect national security the engineer is tried in camera, convicted and sentenced to prison. What is remarkable about this little CBC film is that it could well have been a true story and there was, as far as I know and I had occasion to meet the director at the time, virtually no public reaction when it was broadcast. The salient details of the film’s narrative can be found in a <i>Maclean’s </i>magazine cover story, November 1978, entitled “The Armed Forces: In from the Cold” prepared by Roy MacGregor in which he describes how a 3,500-member Canadian Special Services Forces was <br /><br /></p><blockquote>Formed last year by combining a number of crack Petawawa units with the elite Canadian Airborne Regiment, which was transferred under much controversy from Edmonton, the SSF’s lack of any specific task has led to continuing rumours concerning the military and the possible separation of Quebec. Though the force was planned for more than a decade, its inopportune announcement–just two weeks after the 1976 Parti Québécois victory–and opportune location directly across the river from Quebec have given rise to questions that are also without answers. (20, 21)</blockquote><br />Based on what we now know about how the Airborne Regiment performed in Somalia, we might well have had something to fear in 1978. And many of you will no doubt remember that in the early 70's a Canadian engineer was in fact arrested, tried and convicted on charges related to National Security. The public was never allowed to know the reason for his conviction or any information about his crime or the process of his trial.<p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">October Crisis, Keable Inquiry and “Monsieur X” </span></span></h3><p> I offer these provocative details as my own attempt to provide a competing melodrama of suspense and mystery and, in so doing, to underline that one of the effects of a prevailing mythology is that it prevents us from asking questions. Histories which partake of the mythologies of a particular audience will be heralded as revelatory, realistic and true. These same mythologies can also be used as a way to dismiss, or ignore, or claim as an already worn-out story of passed history any number of legitimate and pressing aspirations. The state of affairs I am describing is one in which a mythology, which can serve as a conduit to communication, becomes a barrier. Within this state what I continue to find most fascinating is what happens when new information is brought forward which might problematize a mythology. I will leave you with one more example. Since at least 1978 there were widely published descriptions of “Monsieur X” who was the sixth member of the Liberation cell responsible for the kidnapping of James Cross. Testimony in the <i>Keable Inquiry</i> into the October Crisis revealed that police had been aware of his identity since 1970. It was only in 1980, after the <i>Keable Inquiry</i>, that Nigel Barry Hamer an English Quebecer, who taught electrical engineering at McGill, was arrested as an FLQ terrorist. In 1981 Hamer was convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for his part in the kidnapping of James Cross. But who noticed? What I find myself wondering is this: Is it possible that Nigel Hamer cannot be seen as a significant figure within the Canadian or Québécois collective imaginations because he cannot be rectified with the prevailing mythologies of the historical event of which he was a part? That is a question, which to my mind, warrants further investigation. <br /><br /></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-54007712526457795912022-10-25T09:19:00.001-07:002022-10-25T16:15:54.092-07:00On Swearing an Oath of Allegiance to Chuck 3<h3 style="text-align: left;"> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Quebec Leads the way</span></span><br /></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">We Anglo square-heads from the ROC (Rest of Canada) tend to be very slow to acknowledge Quebec's leadership. Still we turn to Quebec as the model for maternity/paternity leave and government supported day-care. News programming on <a href="https://ici.radio-canada.ca/" target="_blank">Radio-Canada</a> (the French side of CBC) has long stuck me as superior to its English Canadian equivalent. I've been told this is so because of asymmetrical funding: Quebec gets more than its share of CBC money. Actually, this tends to be the English Canadian explanation for anything Quebec does better than other provinces. My admiration for Radio- Canada, I suspect, has to do with the fact that Quebec journalists occupy an interstitial space between Quebec and the rest of Canada, and therefore manage, now and then, to escape the dominant narrative being dictated by the corporations which supply the news feeds. </span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"<a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2020/05/the-we-vote-in-quebec.html" target="_blank">Quebec Is a nation</a>": Is Canada a nation? </span></span><br /></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Quebec has even managed to instill a sense of pride in its distinct language and culture among its citizens young and old. In <i>Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada</i> (1994), Neil
Bissoondath described "English Canada..." as "adrift with no sense of
its centre" whereas "Quebec redefined its own centre, strengthened
it, sought to make it unassailable" (196). (See <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2022/05/constructing-english-quebec-ethnicity.html" target="_blank">Constructing English Quebec Ethnicity</a>.) I have not unequivocally supported every piece of legislation ever passed in Quebec. However, I do see that actively promoting the "imagined community," as Quebec has done, would be a good idea for the Canadian nation as well. In a country like Canada which doesn't make any obvious sense, whose existence is challenged by geography, ethnicity, economics and politics, an independent, richly funded national news service makes perfect sense. A service dedicated to telling Canadians about Canada and other Canadians seems a minimal requirement for keeping the country together but we are told that we can't afford it. Can it possibly be true that Canadians just aren't interested in Canada?</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLIfg7bWg3q2OT_NCGvNWNWv-6oGHCoaDLR7xc6e5W7ymbToPFqBNKEVCbNHezLV26zDN09jWDDTtFH7-CEfbQibOeDhSWLWlF-wMaidUWVRsDew_flTXzNlK-d81jrtZXuaZFsh62PfKArTbR1qnU-PzYolcW3XmFPjOiIMziMFotzj_UUU8kxeoDAw/s336/Selling_Illusions.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="336" data-original-width="220" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLIfg7bWg3q2OT_NCGvNWNWv-6oGHCoaDLR7xc6e5W7ymbToPFqBNKEVCbNHezLV26zDN09jWDDTtFH7-CEfbQibOeDhSWLWlF-wMaidUWVRsDew_flTXzNlK-d81jrtZXuaZFsh62PfKArTbR1qnU-PzYolcW3XmFPjOiIMziMFotzj_UUU8kxeoDAw/s320/Selling_Illusions.jpg" width="210" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /> </span><br /><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Chucking Chuck 3 </span></span><br /></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Once again Quebec leads the way as Québécois politicians in the National Assembly and the House of Commons are challenging the obligation to swear a solemn oath of allegiance to King Charles III. The timing is perfect. Henry VIII set the bar pretty low for how an English monarch treats his wife. Still, I, like most people in the English-speaking world and beyond, can't imagine fond fealty for the King who made Princess Diana so miserable. </span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Constitutional Obligation</span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"As required by the constitution" is the catch phrase being repeated in the brouhaha over the swearing of allegiance to Charles. True enough, but most Canadians (myself included) might imagine that the Constitution being referred to is the document rewritten in 1982. In fact, our Constitution is still largely a remnant of our colonial history, the Constitution Act (aka British North America Act) of 1867. In 1982, we "repatriated" the Constitution, meaning we gave ourselves or the British gave us (tomato/tomaato) the right to amend our Constitution. We added the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but, apparently, we still haven't gotten around to amending a lot of outdated passages including those related to the "Oath of Allegiance."</span></span><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Oath of Allegiance, etc.</span></span></div><div class="Section"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><a class="sectionLabel" id="s-128"><span class="sectionLabel">128</span></a></b>
Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before
taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General
or some Person authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative
Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his
Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the
Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance
contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; and every Member of the
Senate of Canada and every Member of the Legislative Council of Quebec
shall also, before taking his Seat therein, take and subscribe before
the Governor General, or some Person authorized by him, the Declaration
of Qualification contained in the same Schedule.</span></span></div></blockquote><p class="Section"></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The aforementioned "Fifth Schedule" is an even more quaintly anachronistic statement of obligations and qualifications:</span></span></p><section><div class="Schedule"><header><h2 class="scheduleLabel" id="h-36"><span class="scheduleLabel"></span></h2></header><blockquote><header><h2 class="scheduleLabel" id="h-36"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="scheduleLabel" style="font-size: medium;">THE FIFTH SCHEDULE</span></span></h2></header><p class="centered"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Smallcaps" style="font-size: medium;">Oath of Allegiance</span></span></p><p class="indent-1-0"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I <i>A.B.</i> do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.</span></span></p><p class="indent-1-0"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Note.
— The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time,
with proper Terms of Reference thereto.</i></span></span></p><p class="centered"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Smallcaps" style="font-size: medium;">Declaration of Qualification</span></span></p><p class="indent-1-0"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I <i>A.B.</i> do declare and testify, That I am by Law duly qualified to be appointed a Member of the Senate of Canada [<i>or as the Case may be</i>],
and that I am legally or equitably seised as of Freehold for my own Use
and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Free and Common Socage [<i>or</i> seised or possessed for my own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Franc-alleu or in Roture (<i>as the Case may be</i>),] in the Province of Nova Scotia [<i>or as the Case may be</i>]
of the Value of Four thousand Dollars over and above all Rents, Dues,
Debts, Mortgages, Charges, and Incumbrances due or payable out of or
charged on or affecting the same, and that I have not collusively or
colourably obtained a Title to or become possessed of the said Lands and
Tenements or any Part thereof for the Purpose of enabling me to become a
Member of the Senate of Canada [<i>or as the Case may be</i>], and that my Real and Personal Property are together worth Four thousand Dollars over and above my Debts and Liabilities.</span></span></p></blockquote><p class="indent-1-0"></p></div></section><p style="text-align: left;"> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Did you skip reading the qualifications? You missed the best part. Here's the short version: you must have property, four thousand dollars of wealth, and not be a nouveau-riche social-climber who bought property just to become a Senator. I have gone searching and can find no evidence that this "Declaration of Qualification" has been amended.</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Constitution of Canada is a slippery beast! </span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I was prepared to give myself the task of reading the complete long, boring, official text of the Canadian Constitution. It's what I do, right, on behalf of my readership (i.e., mostly the guys I play golf with). In this case, I have been unable to find an "official" complete-text document online. There are endless opportunities to download The Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was added to the constitution in 1982, and boundless discussions <b>about </b>the Canadian Constitution but, so far, I, a Canadian citizen have been unable to find an official complete copy of the text itself, the document which is supposed to be "the" most important text in the country, spelling out the rules that govern us and our political representatives. What I found in a couple of sources is that part of our Constitution is written, and much of it is unwritten, based on custom and tradition, and underlying assumptions like that we believe in democracy, justice and equality.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE8qxvqksujltB6xo1bnh4b6w-J6CEDFBtk_x7PSD4ju0kSl0L09Buu22mw-M3DIeissSFIKA7oRyZUy9ygQfMKlJ7Uo-86ca6lnJkCtkABY_y5OQacJ8HYrww6E-I-1wQplVQDED6t81dVMR8QLWczTbsd06f050s_or2iMSGDhUK0vRBkJ2bwdUMhg/s852/Screen%20Shot%202022-10-25%20at%2011.50.09%20AM.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="852" data-original-width="648" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE8qxvqksujltB6xo1bnh4b6w-J6CEDFBtk_x7PSD4ju0kSl0L09Buu22mw-M3DIeissSFIKA7oRyZUy9ygQfMKlJ7Uo-86ca6lnJkCtkABY_y5OQacJ8HYrww6E-I-1wQplVQDED6t81dVMR8QLWczTbsd06f050s_or2iMSGDhUK0vRBkJ2bwdUMhg/s320/Screen%20Shot%202022-10-25%20at%2011.50.09%20AM.png" width="243" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Reading parts of the Constitution, like the "Declaration of Qualification" above, I thought, "<i>This archaic language cannot be what is governing us in the third millennia!</i>" But apparently it is. The <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/" target="_blank">argument by analogy</a> I found on a constitutional-studies website is that "</span><a href="https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2017/01/what-you-need-to-know-about-canadas-constitution/?print=print" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: medium;">Even though parts of the Constitution are centuries old, it has been
referred to as a 'living tree' because its meaning can evolve over time
as society changes</span></a><span style="font-size: medium;">." Presumably based on this "living tree" analogy, the House of Commons website claims that "</span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Language=E&Sec=Ch04&Seq=9" target="_blank">When a Member swears or solemnly affirms allegiance to the Queen as Sovereign of Canada, he or she is also swearing or solemnly affirming allegiance to the institutions the Queen represents, including the concept of democracy</a></span></span>."</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Same Words; different meaning</span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I get the argument, to a degree, that we "reinterpret" the Constitution over time. But the idea that swearing allegiance to a King, the anathema of democratic principle, is actually "affirming allegiance to [ . . .] the concept of democracy" is a stretch too far. The Monarch is an icon of privilege as birthright, of wealth and social inequality; in other words, a denial and denigration of all those values which we supposedly aspire to these days. We are told that our Senate, our Governor General and our Monarch are "only" symbolic offices. That's a lot of expensive symbolism for a country that can't afford a public broadcasting system. And, of course, they are "only" symbolic until they aren't, and the Constitution becomes "the letter of the law." (See <a href="https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/king-byng-affair" target="_blank">The King-Byng Affair</a>.)<br /></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Canadian Constitution, the unassailable laws which govern us, barely mentions the Prime Minister. Constitutionally, the Prime Minister is supposed to be no more than "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primus_inter_pares" target="_blank">a first among equals</a>," but in practice, in <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2016/12/when-it-comes-to-democracy-who-are.html" target="_blank">our warped electoral process, which we were promised would be done away with years ago</a>, the Prime Minister enjoys the power of an unconstitutional monarch and an un-elected president.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I understand that for the UK the royal family survives as media celebrities and a tourist attraction. I have no objection to the British maintaining the royals along with Harry Potter and Hogwarts Castle, in competition with Mickey and Donald and the Kardashians in the USA, but the oath is diminishing for Canada and Canadians.<br /></span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Poetry of Quebec resistance</span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Reading the history of the <a href="https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Language=E&Sec=Ch04&Seq=9" target="_blank">Oath of Allegiance</a>, I thought, "<i>How poetic--poetic justice, in fact--that Quebec, a historically Catholic province, is leading the protest against an oath of allegiance to King Charles</i>." The oath did not exist in medieval times. The</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"> <span>oath became required with Henry VIII's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Supremacy" target="_blank">Act of Supremacy</a> in which Henry split from the Catholic Church and named himself head of the Church of England. The Act was briefly repealed then declared anew by Henry's daughter, Queen Elizabeth I. To this day, the English monarch remains head of the Church of England even if he happens to be an adulterer, divorced and married to his mistress. As pointed out on the <a href="https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Language=E&Sec=Ch04&Seq=9" target="_blank">House of Common's website</a>:</span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">[. . .] the oath of supremacy was primarily directed at preventing Roman Catholics from holding public
office. To this was added, in 1678, a declaration against transubstantiation which, with the oath of
supremacy, effectively barred Roman Catholics from Parliament.</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> </span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></span><p><br /></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-86641086816889757602022-10-16T10:54:00.001-07:002022-12-03T06:57:54.003-08:00Survey Says . . .<h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Everybody's Screaming "misinformation" </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This is a bit of a sidebar but I am shocked by how frequently writers will misquote or misinterpret the sources of their own opinions and arguments. Big deal, right? Everybody is screaming about misinformation these days. Over the years, I've formed the impression that the people who are supposed to be the most reliable sources of information, the people most likely to scream "misinformation," often prove the worst purveyors of misinformation.</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Baloney detector </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">If you have read Carl Sagan's rules for how to detect baloney, you are aware that what is quantifiable is more likely to be credible, factual and true. In other words, if there is a number attached we can and probably should believe it--whatever "it" is. The problem is that numbers always have to be interpreted. With the interpretation, the baloney factor can immediately creep back in. </span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Telephone game </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">If you have ever been to summer camp, chances are you have played the "telephone game." The point of the game is to discover how information gets distorted as it is passed (whispered) from one person to another. Contrary to the argument that the internet would democratize the news, if you google any recent news story you will find all the major news agencies and most of the minor ones covering exactly the same story. Each media outlet will provide a headline putting a slightly different spin on the news, and the headline that best plays to its target audience, and is most exaggerated, outrageous and enraging will get the most readers. The old standard used to be that a news story needed at least two authentic sources, but these days you can read the same story in a dozen different places and conclude it must therefore be true, when the media may well be--<i>a la </i>telephone game--just repeating each other with increasingly colourful headlines based on a single questionable or misinterpreted source. This brings us to the single most frequently misinterpreted and questionable source: the poll.</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Template for a prelude to war </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Following the model established when the US sent VP Joe Biden to Ukraine in 2014 to get the Ukrainians stoked for a war with Russia; recently, the Democrats sent their geriatric warrior princess, Nancy Pelosi, to see what could be done about encouraging a war between Taiwan and China. (To be fair about the purpose of the visits, in both cases their children were involved. Nancy's son accompanied her to do some business in the region, and Joe's son was in Ukraine in 2014 on the payroll of a Ukrainian energy company.) VP Biden's promise, in 2014, of military support for Ukraine was ambiguous. This time, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-61548531" target="_blank">President Biden has explicitly promised Taiwan the military backing of the USA</a>, but the State Department has been vigorously walking back his statements. And, of course, Canada, ever eager to imitate big brother USA, followed up by sending five MPs to Taiwan to further irritate China. Needless to say, Taiwan is in the news because everyone in the West wants to know if, like the Ukrainians, the Taiwanese are ready to go to war with the tyrant next door.</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">According to the <i>Globe and Mail </i></span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The headline in the <i>Globe and Mail</i> (1 October 2022) is radically moderate, outside the mainstream: "Small minority in Taiwan say they support unification with China." These days it's pretty radical for anyone in western media to report that even a "small minority" supports China. The article is a series of interviews with Taiwan citizens who are part of this fringe who claim "We are Chinese [ . . .] we should unite [. . .]." However, just so we <i>Globe</i> readers don't get the wrong idea there is this:</span></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">An August poll by the Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation, an independent and non-partisan organization, found that only 11.8 per cent of respondents favoured "unification" with China. Fifty per cent of those surveyed said they would opt for independence, and 25.7 backed the status quo. </span></span> </blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This paragraph serves as an inoculation against the content which follows, just in case you might be tempted to take the pro-unification opinions as a representation of reality. This is the truth: here are the numbers supplied by an "independent," "non-partisan," "Taiwanese" foundation. What more could we possibly ask for?</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Who Did the survey? Who supplied the numbers? </span></span><br /></h3><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Ever the skeptic, I googled "Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation." Hmm, that's odd. It's home office is in Washington, DC. When I googled a bit deeper I discovered its parent organization, the Global Taiwan Institute. Most of the heavy-weights on its Board of Directors and Staff have ties to the US Defense and/or State Department. The Board of Directors describes itself online as Taiwanese-Americans and "<a href="https://globaltaiwan.org/board_of_directors/" target="_blank">board members all share a passion for closer ties between the United States and Taiwan</a>." What does "independent" mean? "Non-partisan"? What does "Taiwanese" mean?</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Numbers don't lie <br /></span></span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Still, none of this proves that <a href="https://www.tpof.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/20210830-%E8%8B%B1%E6%96%87%E7%89%882%E3%80%8C%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E4%BA%BA%E7%9A%84%E6%B0%91%E6%97%8F%E8%AA%8D%E5%90%8C%E8%88%87%E7%B5%B1%E7%8D%A8%E5%82%BE%E5%90%91%E3%80%8D%E4%B8%83%E6%9C%88%E6%B0%91%E8%AA%BF%E8%A3%9C%E5%85%85%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A.pdf" target="_blank">the survey</a> wasn't carried out with scientific rigour and impartiality. Numbers don't lie. However, before there can be numbers there must be questions. Of course, the poll doesn't ask the question we all want an answer to: Are the people of Taiwan ready to go to war with China to claim independence? If ever there is a war, we know this poll will be used as proof that the war is happening because it is the will of the Taiwanese people, who are ready to bravely fight and die for their sovereignty and independence from an evil Chinese empire. </span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What Was the question?</span></span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Here is the question asked in the poll:</span></span></p><p><span class="markedContent" id="page77R_mcid0"><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: 20px; left: 326.533px; top: 127.533px; transform: scaleX(0.918282);"></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 326.533px; top: 127.533px; transform: scaleX(0.918282);">“</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 665.367px; top: 127.533px; transform: scaleX(0.874964);">There are debates</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 180.033px; top: 157.533px; transform: scaleX(0.904476);"> regarding the future of Taiwan. Some people argue Taiwan should pursue</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 180.033px; top: 187.533px; transform: scaleX(0.932534);"> unification with the other side of the [Taiwan] Strait, while others argue Taiwan</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 180.033px; top: 217.567px; transform: scaleX(0.897895);"> should pursue its own independence. Do you</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 538.293px; top: 217.567px;"> </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 543.367px; top: 217.567px; transform: scaleX(0.906535);">support Taiwan independence, or</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 180.033px; top: 247.567px; transform: scaleX(0.929466);"> unification with the other side?</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 430.167px; top: 247.567px; transform: scaleX(0.907295);">” </span></span></span></blockquote><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: 20px; left: 430.167px; top: 247.567px; transform: scaleX(0.907295);"></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The wording of the question will always affect the outcome of a survey. I would question the use of "the other side" as opposed to the official designation, "Peoples Republic of China" or even the vernacular "mainland China." Nonetheless, here are the results of the survey of just over a thousand respondents, in July 2022, which are being repeated in the <i>Globe and Mail</i>.</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Results</span></span></h3><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span class="markedContent" id="page77R_mcid0"><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: 20px; left: 430.167px; top: 247.567px; transform: scaleX(0.907295);"></span></span><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="markedContent" id="page77R_mcid0"><a href="https://www.tpof.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/20220816-TPOF-August-2022-Public-Opinion-Poll-%E2%80%93-English-Excerpt.pdf" target="_blank"><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 430.167px; top: 247.567px; transform: scaleX(0.907295);">The poll finds among Taiwanese adults aged 20</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 180.033px; top: 277.567px; transform: scaleX(0.889462);"> years and older, 5</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 321.433px; top: 277.567px;">0</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 331.433px; top: 277.567px; transform: scaleX(0.899533);">% said they support Taiwan independence, 11</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 697.2px; top: 277.567px; transform: scaleX(0.9);">.8</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 712.2px; top: 277.567px; transform: scaleX(0.963);">% for </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 180.033px; top: 307.567px; transform: scaleX(0.949488);">unification, 2</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 286.633px; top: 307.567px;">5</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 296.633px; top: 307.567px; transform: scaleX(0.9);">.7</span></a><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 311.633px; top: 307.567px; transform: scaleX(0.910742);"><a href="https://www.tpof.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/20220816-TPOF-August-2022-Public-Opinion-Poll-%E2%80%93-English-Excerpt.pdf" target="_blank">% for maintaining status quo</a>.</span></span></span></span></span></blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvXkUFVT5j7r2HtHiAilvi_5dCMLcCSykROs-dSV2vXyQuFUuYQxLo4fmK_5YwP8jVK19pHQqQo-xN9SwWpAM3TBBlf1Ghaq-vf6immjOHBkk4F8h0FqT3B_sOVzUIPPAOiTJLPeb3RSLCwjlX-bBALUOQckiDKKWyPI5wRqClfluRiqjpVlSrwksjiA/s591/Screen%20Shot%202022-10-16%20at%209.52.10%20AM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="353" data-original-width="591" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvXkUFVT5j7r2HtHiAilvi_5dCMLcCSykROs-dSV2vXyQuFUuYQxLo4fmK_5YwP8jVK19pHQqQo-xN9SwWpAM3TBBlf1Ghaq-vf6immjOHBkk4F8h0FqT3B_sOVzUIPPAOiTJLPeb3RSLCwjlX-bBALUOQckiDKKWyPI5wRqClfluRiqjpVlSrwksjiA/w400-h239/Screen%20Shot%202022-10-16%20at%209.52.10%20AM.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /></h3><h3 style="text-align: left;"> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Interpretation of the numbers</span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">These are the number which will eventually be used in western media to justify a war between Taiwan and China. However, before we send the people of Taiwan into battle for their independence, we should note that 50% of respondents <b>did not</b> express a desire for independence. Moreover, based on a relatively small sample (1,035 people), the margin of error is 3.5%. The survey, as a whole, danced around the question of a war with China--reactions to war games, Pelosi's visit, Biden's promises, confidence in Taiwan's military, etc--but never asked the obvious question: Are you ready to go to war with China over Taiwan's independence?</span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The only direct "war question" in the survey was "Do you think war with China is imminent?" and 39% of respondents thought war was likely, 53% thought it was not and the rest didn't answer. Obviously, many of the people who said they wanted independence weren't thinking about going to war for it. </span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The same survey question about Taiwan independence has repeatedly been asked on surveys since 1994. In many respects the 50% for independence number is an aberration, the highest that has ever been recorded. One year earlier, the Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation results for the same question claimed 46.6% in favour of independence. Nonetheless, according to the Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation report:</span></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This is yet another data point to </span></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">support our long-established observation that the majority of the Taiwanese</span></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> public, when offered the options, prefer Taiwan independence above all other</span></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> options including “status quo”. The narrative that “a majority of Taiwanese want</span></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> to maintain status quo” is simply a myth that is unfortunately embraced by the</span></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> current leadership of both major political parties (DPP and KMT) which is not</span></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> supported by polling data.</span></span></span></blockquote><p> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">This conclusion eerily echoes the "will of the people" argument which was used to justify the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Ukraine in 2014. While the report claims that the survey showed a preference for "Taiwan independence above all other options including "status quo'," we should note that the question asked was a binary--independence or unification--and did not offer "status quo" or any other possibility as an acceptable answer. In other words, those who answered "status quo" had to ignore and go outside the question to answer. Given that Taiwan is an island and has been politically dissociated from mainland China since 1949, it is surprising how few Taiwanese chose independence to answer a survey question phrased as it was. </span></span></span><br /></p><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></span><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Diving deeper </span></span><br /></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">What I have been quoting is an English excerpt based on the full survey. The excerpt claims: "</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="markedContent" id="page3R_mcid9"><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 150.033px; top: 817.6px; transform: scaleX(0.902758);">The</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 181.133px; top: 817.6px;"> </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 186.133px; top: 817.6px; transform: scaleX(0.912306);">full release</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 274.353px; top: 817.6px;"> </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 279.433px; top: 817.6px; transform: scaleX(0.898315);">in Chinese language is available on</span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 562.013px; top: 817.6px;"> </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 567.067px; top: 817.6px; transform: scaleX(0.922491);">our</span></span><span class="markedContent" id="page3R_mcid10"><span aria-owns="pdfjs_internal_id_30R" dir="ltr" style="left: 593.727px; top: 817.6px;"> </span><a href="https://www.tpof.org/2%E6%9C%88%E8%A8%98%E8%80%85%E6%9C%83%E6%9B%B8%E9%9D%A2%E8%B3%87%E6%96%99v3-2/#1481615704750-f9c19a3d-cf4b" target="_blank"><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 598.767px; top: 817.6px; transform: scaleX(0.949295);">official website</span></a></span><span class="markedContent" id="page3R_mcid11"><span dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="left: 722.3px; top: 817.6px;">." Even with the help of Google translate, I was unable to track down the "full release." However, in the course of my attempts, I did discover that the address of the Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation was said to be "</span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">2F, No. 170, Fuxing North Road, Zhongshan District, Taipei City" (not Washington, DC). All the information I read on the website destined for a Taiwanese audience was scrubbed of reference to the USA. </span></span></span></span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Survey Says . . . </span></span></span></span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Eventually I found another Taiwanese survey on the same question, and this time (as far as I could determine) the organization does seem to be Taiwanese, in Taiwan and under the umbrella of a Taiwanese university: <a href="https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963" target="_blank">Election Study Center, National Chengehi University.</a></span> Unfortunately, access to their data requires a special permission which I do not have. But I was able to copy <a href="https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963" target="_blank">this chart</a> (click on the link if you can't read what I copied):</span></span></span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"></span></span></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVheP4hNB6iADq_GsL_2I8aJUJkr_L5G8TuZZZ3OJfqH619iy1KIiQOaaJXu-T5UEobUYFhGVvojkluurVpJ3COycxw9tFWbQzk2_95TYtCGwHlmTZRODw311rweDvtp5t1G9w4tbR_Ct-dT6cujSfksbanoOLQqET8EL1rfHv2A_S_T2S27V6rAEH5A/s2338/Tondu202206.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1654" data-original-width="2338" height="424" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVheP4hNB6iADq_GsL_2I8aJUJkr_L5G8TuZZZ3OJfqH619iy1KIiQOaaJXu-T5UEobUYFhGVvojkluurVpJ3COycxw9tFWbQzk2_95TYtCGwHlmTZRODw311rweDvtp5t1G9w4tbR_Ct-dT6cujSfksbanoOLQqET8EL1rfHv2A_S_T2S27V6rAEH5A/w572-h424/Tondu202206.jpg" width="572" /></a></span></span></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: inherit;">As this graph shows, there are seven possible answers to the "Unification-Independence" question, and the Election Study Center has asked the question every year since 1994. From 1994 to June of 2022, "Independence as soon as possible" has consistently scored second lowest of the seven possibilities. Only "Unification as soon as possible" consistently scored lower. For eighteen years, the Taiwanese have consistently demonstrated that they do not want to be pushed into independence or into unification with China, and they have elected governments which reflect those wishes. Perhaps this is what should be reported in western media before we find ourselves with another proxy war.</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: inherit;">Addendum</span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: inherit;"> From Reuters:</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taiwan-votes-local-elections-amid-tensions-with-china-2022-11-26/" target="_blank">TAIPEI, Nov 26 (Reuters) - Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen resigned as
head of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) on Saturday after
her strategy to frame local elections as showing defiance to China's
rising bellicosity failed to pay off and win public support.</a></blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: inherit;"> </span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: inherit;"> </span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: inherit;"> </span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: inherit;"> <br /></span></span></p><p></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-57396192561367834252022-10-12T07:35:00.004-07:002022-10-14T07:50:02.824-07:00On "Blaming America for Russian Aggression"<h3 style="text-align: left;"> "Eloquent rebuttals" </h3><p class="single-title" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">According to an article in <i>Bulwark</i> entitled "<a href="https://www.thebulwark.com/blaming-america-for-russian-aggression-then-and-now/" target="_blank">Blaming America for Russian Aggression, Then and Now</a>":</span></span></p><p class="single-title" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>The claim that American actions, especially pushing to enlarge NATO,
precipitated Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has been asserted not
only by Kremlin officials but also by <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine">foreign policy realists</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4">anti-establishment pundits</a>, and “<a href="https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1502676524604010500">anti-imperialists</a>” in the West. It persists despite eloquent rebuttals by <a href="https://www.thebulwark.com/putins-bogus-blame-nato-excuse/">Cathy Young</a>, <a href="https://quillette.com/2022/02/14/putins-mission-to-restore-the-imperial-glory-of-mother-russia/">Chris Miller</a>, <a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-worst-nightmare-is-ukrainian-independence-not-nato-expansion/">Peter Dickinson</a>, former U.S. ambassador to Russia <a href="https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/what-putin-fears-most/">Michael McFaul</a>, and many others. </blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">As a novice, newly <a href="Foreign Policy Realism: Can an Agreement on Ukrainian Neutrality End the War?" target="_blank">self-discovered foreign policy realist</a> now being lumped together with "Kremlin officials," I guess it's time for me to face the truth about what caused the Russian invasion of Ukraine and how the USA was innocent of blame. How do these articles rebut my recent hypotheses that the USA and western allies supported the overthrow of the democratically-elected President of Ukraine in a bloody coup in 2014 which was "a" provocation if not "the" provocation of the Russian invasion days later?</span></span> <br /></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Niranjan Shankar's "Blaming America" article makes no mention of the Maidan Uprising. Shankar glosses the time period saying:<a href="https://www.thebulwark.com/blaming-america-for-russian-aggression-then-and-now/" target="_blank"> "Putin forced the country to renege on a proposal to join the EU in 2013 and subsequently invaded in 2014."</a> Obviously, Ukraine is still not a member of the EU. The suggestion that the 2013 trade agreement (which was signed in 2014, after Maidan) was "a proposal to join the EU" is an exaggeration. "Putin forced the country" is Shankar's interpretation of the fact that Putin invited Ukraine to join a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Customs_Union" target="_blank">Eurasian Customs Union</a> and offered a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-russia-bailout-idCNBREA0M21620140123" target="_blank">bailout of $15 billion</a>. "Reneged" is a questionable choice of word to describe Yanucovych's decision to end the negotiations and accept the Russian offer when the EU showed little interest in providing a bailout. </span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">"Putin's Bogus Blame-NATO Excuse" <br /></h3><p> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Cathy Young's "<a href="https://www.thebulwark.com/putins-bogus-blame-nato-excuse/" target="_blank">Putin's Bogus Blame-NATO Excuse</a>" at least mentions the Maidan Uprising. She writes:</span></span> <br /></p><p><a href="https://www.thebulwark.com/putins-bogus-blame-nato-excuse/" target="_blank"></a></p><blockquote>Indeed, the 2013-14 “Euromaidan” protests that led to a new revolution in Ukraine—and to the beginning of Russia’s protracted war against its neighbor—were sparked when Putin strong-armed and cajoled Yanukovych, who succeeded Yushchenko in 2010, into abruptly abandoning an about-to-be signed EU trade agreement and ditching several bills meant to fulfill the EU’s conditions for the pact. </blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Young seems to acknowledge a cause-and-effect relationship between Maidan and the Russian invasion but she says nothing more about the uprising. Her claim that "Putin strong-armed and cajoled Yanukovych" suggests that she was in the room when the strong-arming and cajoling were happening--which seems unlikely. Yes, Yanukovych "succeeded Yushchenko in 2010" in what she fails to mention was a democratic election, supervised and accredited by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe). Consequently, if the great majority of Ukrainians (West and East) objected to Yanukovych and his trade deals, rather than a a bloody coup in 2014, they could have voted him out of office in 2015.</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">"Vladimir Putin Fears Ukrainian Democracy not NATO" <br /></h3><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">If Cathy Young sounds like she was in the room, in "Vladimir Putin Fears Ukrainian Democracy not NATO," Peter Dickinson sounds like he was at Putin's bedside recording his every murmur, dream and nightmare. Like Young, Dickinson suggests cause and effect between Maidan and the Russian invasion. He argues that Putin responded to the "<a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-worst-nightmare-is-ukrainian-independence-not-nato-expansion/" target="_blank">Ukrainian pro-democracy uprising by ordering the invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.</a>" Like Young, Dickinson has nothing more to say about the subject of Maidan. It is striking that in an article on "Ukrainian Democracy," Dickinson seems undisturbed that the democratically-elected President was overthrown in a bloody coup, and blithely describes the coup as a "pro-democracy uprising." </span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"What Putin Really Wants"</span></span><br /></h3><p class="c-post-header__title" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> In "<a href="https://quillette.com/2022/02/14/putins-mission-to-restore-the-imperial-glory-of-mother-russia/" target="_blank">What Putin Really Wants</a>" Christopher Miller has nothing to say about and makes no allusion to the Maidan Uprising that I can detect. However, Miller makes the kind of claim that always catches my attention: <a href="https://quillette.com/2022/02/14/putins-mission-to-restore-the-imperial-glory-of-mother-russia/" target="_blank">"</a></span></span><a href="https://quillette.com/2022/02/14/putins-mission-to-restore-the-imperial-glory-of-mother-russia/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The vast majority of Ukrainians reject them [the Minsk Accords].</span></span>"</a><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://quillette.com/2022/02/14/putins-mission-to-restore-the-imperial-glory-of-mother-russia/" target="_blank"> </a>The Minsk Protocol was an agreement between Russia and the Ukraine in 2014 overseen by the OSCE and mediated by France and Germany to end the fighting between East and West Ukraine by granting increased autonomy to the eastern regions. Miller's source for the claim that the vast majority of Ukrainians reject the agreements is an article in <i>Euromaidan Press</i>: </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"<a href="https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/12/30/three-fours-of-ukrainians-oppose-minsk-accords-in-current-form-poll-shows/">Three-fourths of Ukrainians oppose Minsk accords in current form, poll shows</a>."</span></span></p><p class="c-post-header__title" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Contrary to MIller's claim that "the vast majority of Ukrainians reject them," the article states, right off the top, that the poll </span></span>"<span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">showed that the majority of Ukrainians (54%) believe that <b>the Minsk accords should be revised." </b>[Bold highlighting is in the original article.] The debate outlined in the source article concerns variations in the format and which countries should be involved. Western analysts may be eager to conclude that Ukrainians reject the Minsk Accords, but that is not what the poll shows.</span></span></p><p class="c-post-header__title" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I dove into the poll which is the source for both articles (thank God for Google Translate and BTW, am I the only person in the world who checks the polls quoted in the press? Help me out here, people!) The poll being cited is a general survey of the "Socio-political attitudes of the [Ukrainian] population" based on telephone interviews with 2500 respondents in December 2021, excluding residents of the Donbas and Crimea. Although Miller sounds categorical that the vast majority reject the accords, according to the poll, only 11% of respondents (275 people) said they were very familiar with the content of the Minsk Agreements. If anything, the poll reflects general support for the idea of the Minsk Accords, ending the east-west conflict, despite differences of opinion on and knowledge of the details.</span></span></p><p class="c-post-header__title" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The mistake is to believe that any thought or feeling is shared by the vast majority of Ukrainians. According to the poll, if an election were to be held the next day, 23.5% of decided voters would vote for Volodymyr Zelensky--well ahead of his rivals but far from the 100% support we in the West are encouraged to imagine he enjoys. In the poll, 33% of respondents identified Zelensky as the candidate they would "not vote for under any circumstances."</span></span></p><h3 class="c-post-header__title" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>"What Putin Fears Most" </span></span></span> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></h3><p class="c-post-header__title" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Of the four "eloquent rebuttals" Shankar lists, only Michael McFaul's "<a href="https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/what-putin-fears-most/" target="_blank">What Putin Fears Most</a>" has much to say about the Maidan Uprising. After the predictable list of what Putin thinks, feels, dreams, wants and fears, McFaul and his co-author Robert Person write:</span></span></p><p class="c-post-header__title" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><p class="c-post-header__title" style="text-align: left;">Putin believes that Russian national interests have been threatened by
what he portrays as U.S.-supported coups. After each of them—Serbia in
2000, Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004, the Arab Spring in 2011, Russia
in 2011–12, and Ukraine in 2013–14—Putin has pivoted to more hostile
policies toward the United States, and then invoked the NATO threat as
justification for doing so.</p><p class="c-post-header__title" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p></blockquote><p class="c-post-header__title" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Are the authors telling us that these are all Putin-imagined coups and have no connection with reality? The only example I have researched, "Ukraine in 2013-14," appears to be an overt US-supported coup. If the USA supported the overthrow of the pro-Russian President of Ukraine twice, wouldn't that be a justification for Putin to view NATO as a threat?<br /></span></span></p><p class="c-post-header__title" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The authors describe the Maidan Uprising and its context as follows:<br /></span></span></p><p class="c-post-header__title" style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/what-putin-fears-most/" target="_blank"></a></p><blockquote><p class="c-post-header__title" style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: black;">The next democratic
mobilization to threaten Putin happened a second time in Ukraine in
2013–14. After the Orange Revolution in 2004, Putin did not invade
Ukraine, but wielded other instruments of influence to help his protégé,
Viktor Yanukovych</span>, <a rel="noopener" target="_blank">narrowly win the Ukrainian presidency</a>
six years later. Yanukovych, however, turned out not to be a loyal
Kremlin servant, but tried to cultivate ties with both Russia and the
West. Putin finally compelled Yanukovych to make a choice, and the
Ukrainian president chose Russia in the fall of 2013 when he reneged on
signing <a rel="noopener" target="_blank">an EU association agreement</a> in favor of membership in Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union.
</p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Sometimes, the choice of words is everything. A bloody coup is a "democratic mobilization"; the billionaire president is a "protégé" and "servant"; "wielded other instruments of influence" like campaign financing (?); to be elected with a margin of the popular vote which would put most US presidential elections to shame is to "narrowly win." Yes, Yanucovych backed out of the negotiations and was pushed by Russia to do so; but, as reported by Reuters at the time (19 December 2013), "<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-russia-deal-special-report-idUSBRE9BI0DZ20131219" target="_blank">the unwillingness of the EU and International Monetary Fund to be
flexible in their demands of Ukraine also had an effect, making them
less attractive partners</a>."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">When Person and McFaul come to describe the Maidan, they claim:</span></span><br /></p><blockquote><p class="font--serif font--medium font--large">To the surprise of
everyone in Moscow, Kyiv, Brussels, and Washington, Yanukovych’s
decision to scuttle this agreement with the EU triggered mass
demonstrations in Ukraine again, bringing <a rel="noopener" target="_blank">hundreds of thousands</a> of Ukrainians into the streets in what would become known as the <a rel="noopener" target="_blank">Euromaidan</a>
or “Revolution of Dignity” to protest Yanukovych’s turn away from the
democratic West. The street protests lasted several weeks, punctuated by
the killing of dozens of peaceful protestors by Yanukovych’s
government, the eventual collapse of that government and Yanukovych’s
flight to Russia in February 2014, and a new <a rel="noopener" target="_blank">pro-Western government</a> taking power in Kyiv. Putin had “lost” Ukraine for the second time in a decade.</p></blockquote><p class="font--serif font--medium font--large"></p><p class="font--serif font--medium font--large"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"To the surprise of everyone": this phrasing stretches credulity. The size and rapidity of the demonstrations prove advanced planning and, <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/" target="_blank">as we have seen</a>, sources inside Ukraine pointed to TechCamps in the US embassy as the training ground if not the hub. "The killing of dozens of peaceful protestors by Yanukovych's government": <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2022/09/who-do-you-believe.html" target="_blank">as we have confirmed from multiple sources </a>the protesters were armed, fired on and killed police officers. Most shockingly, if the detailed report based on video, interviews with Maidan protesters, and bullet impact studies, by political scientist, <span><span> <a class="nova-legacy-e-link nova-legacy-e-link--color-inherit nova-legacy-e-link--theme-bare" href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ivan-Katchanovski">Ivan Katchanovski</a> of the University of Ottawa, is to be believed, the uprising was orchestrated by an alliance of right-wing ultra nationalists who fired upon their fellow protestors.</span></span> </span></span></p><h3 class="font--serif font--medium font--large" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Who's Afraid of Democracy?</span></span> </h3><p class="font--serif font--medium font--large" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">It is a truism in literary studies that when writers want to avoid politics they focus on individual psychology. As I read these detailed comments on Vladimir Putin's psyche, I wonder if these political analysts are trying to avoid politics. Putin may very well be afraid of democracy, but so are those who preferred a bloody coup in 2014 to a Presidential election in Ukraine in 2015.</span></span><br /></p><br /><p></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-67647648167258668292022-10-09T09:37:00.007-07:002022-12-01T10:05:21.469-08:00"Unlikely Canada": First Quebec and Now Alberta<h3 style="text-align: left;">Does Canada make sense? <br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Peter Zeihan's 2015 anatomy of world geopolitics, <i>The Accidental Super Power</i>, is fascinating reading largely because of his bold and confident predictions about the near future (2015 to 2030). I felt both taken aback and vindicated to read his chapter entitled "Unlikely Canada." I was taken aback to read that my country is unlikely to exist for much longer but vindicated that his rationale echoed an observation I made in a presentation entitled "<a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2022/04/the-concept-formerly-known-as.html" target="_blank">The Concept Formerly Known as Nationalism</a>" in 2002 at the University of Toronto. I pointed out:</span></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">At first glance, Canada doesn’t make sense as a country. Everything
about the country’s social and physical geography suggests that it
should not exist. We live in a country that is three thousand miles
long, in which 90% of the population lives within a hundred miles of the
American border; the vast territories to the north remain largely
unknown to the majority of the population. We are divided by language,
race, ethnicity, gender, by sexual and political orientation, province,
region and class. The urban centres are growing, largely in isolation
from one another, while every place else stagnates and shrinks. </span></span></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">My point, unlike Zeihan's predictions of disintegration, was that "Such a place can only be held together through conscious and considerable human effort." If geography, demographics, economics, provincialism and short-term self interest are allowed to play out uncontested, then Canada's future, as Zeihan claims, is "unlikely." <br /></span></span></p><div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_cSiCLt2mZY3LA0UaY73nZx07tlWo1U-AGK7WO_94vVNuPGfD9NmZlbAHFlQPfeqyHqRYaN9TvIL3WeIiUD9BmoNiAdzOKNajflCCxoJ2yuV26Dw1jfebLPVJTc7S8DgHKlHKYk0g1SPwZDwI6HvTctnIA9tNVXe9PCVDUBRVETu0CBmTCX5GCOHEvg/s600/51bqSCGhHhL._AC_UL600_SR600,600_.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_cSiCLt2mZY3LA0UaY73nZx07tlWo1U-AGK7WO_94vVNuPGfD9NmZlbAHFlQPfeqyHqRYaN9TvIL3WeIiUD9BmoNiAdzOKNajflCCxoJ2yuV26Dw1jfebLPVJTc7S8DgHKlHKYk0g1SPwZDwI6HvTctnIA9tNVXe9PCVDUBRVETu0CBmTCX5GCOHEvg/s320/51bqSCGhHhL._AC_UL600_SR600,600_.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>First Quebec</span></span></span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">As a citizen of Quebec, I witnessed the independence movement grow from a fringe terrorist group, the FLQ (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_lib%C3%A9ration_du_Qu%C3%A9bec" target="_blank"><span title="French-language text"><span lang="fr" style="font-style: normal;">Front de libération du Québec</span></span></a>), in 1970 to the ruling <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois" target="_blank">Parti Québécois</a> in 1976. Through two referendums on independence--1980 (40.44% for; 59.56% against) and 1995 (49.42% for; 50.58% against)--I came to realize how messy, unpredictable and even mercurial democracy and the future of nations can be.<br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Zeihan's take sounds a lot like the Quebec bashing I'm used to hearing from Anglo Canadians, especially when he describes the federal system of equalization payments as "bribing Quebec" to the tune of $16 billion a year using tax money from Alberta. </span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Indirectly, Zeihan makes a point I have unsuccessfully tried to present to my Québécois friends: Canada wouldn't necessarily survive provincial independence. As a Québécois comedian quipped during an early referendum campaign, "According to advocates of independence, Quebec will still have Canadian passports, Canadian money, and the Canadian military. Gee, maybe we're already independent and don't know it!" </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The underlying motivation for Quebec's independence tends to be maintenance of the language, culture and identity; in other words, all the features of ethnic homogeneity while <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2020/05/the-we-vote-in-quebec.html" target="_blank">at the same time adamantly denying ethnic nationalism</a>. The rational justification for independence is that a sovereign Quebec would be a better country than Canada. I have argued that you can't have a sovereign Quebec and a strong, thriving Canada; you can't have your Canadian cake and eat it too. Most Quebec independentists refuse to acknowledge this claim, perhaps because there isn't an exact translation of this expression (French equivalent is, roughly, "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it" target="_blank">you can't have the money and the butter</a>"), but more likely because French language and culture would arguably fare less well without a Canada, in an expanded USA or as one of a number of Balkanized countries on the US northern border. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Having outlined in detail how Quebec secession would be the end of
Canada, Zeihan then concludes categorically that "the Quebec question is
answered. Quebec will not secede and so the question won’t kill
Canada." While Zeihan's certainty might reassure some Canadians, we should not lose track of the fact that three of the four parties in Quebec's National Assembly are officially in favour of independence. In the most recent Quebec election (3 October 2022) the CAQ (<span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9"><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m">Coalition Avenir Québec), led by Bernard Legault, a former PQ (</span></span><span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9"><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m">Parti Québécois) </span></span><span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9"><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m"> minister, won a commanding majority. Legault is rightly described as an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tapisme" target="_blank"><i>étapis</i></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tapisme">t</a>, adhering to a step-by-step </span></span>strategy to Quebec sovereignty. His current dominance might well prove a step in that direction.</span></span></p><table aria-describedby="table-summary" aria-labelledby="table-title" class="MuiTable-root css-e3mamf"><tbody class="MuiTableBody-root css-1cehlle"><tr class="MuiTableRow-root MuiTableRow-head css-1gqug66"><th class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-head MuiTableCell-sizeMedium th-visible css-17slge4" role="columnheader" scope="col"><span class="MuiBox-root css-trfuzi">Party</span></th><th aria-hidden="true" class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-head MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-l3pxu5" data-maj="50.806451612903224" role="columnheader" scope="col" style="text-indent: 50.8065%;"><br /></th><th class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-head MuiTableCell-sizeMedium th-visible css-17slge4" role="columnheader" scope="col">Elected</th><th class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-head MuiTableCell-sizeMedium th-visible css-17slge4" role="columnheader" scope="col"><br /></th><th class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-head MuiTableCell-sizeMedium th-visible css-17slge4" role="columnheader" scope="col">Total</th><th class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-head MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1nbv7ee" role="columnheader" scope="col">Votes</th><th class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-head MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1nbv7ee" role="columnheader" scope="col">Share</th></tr><tr class="MuiTableRow-root css-1gqug66"><th class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-ujbhs0" scope="row"><span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9"><span class="MuiBox-root css-iw4kas"></span><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m">Coalition Avenir Québec</span></span></th><td aria-hidden="true" class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1pvywqs"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1a00xmz" style="width: 100%;"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1h79v3e"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1qtgkxp"></div><div class="MuiBox-root css-792pj2" data-value="72.58064516129032" style="width: 72.5807%;"><span class="MuiBox-root css-trfuzi"><br /></span></div></div></div><br /></td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-25fwok">90</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-25fwok"><br /></td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1dym9ub">90</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1klqdt2">1,682,952</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1klqdt2">41.0%</td></tr><tr class="MuiTableRow-root css-1gqug66"><th class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-ujbhs0" scope="row"><span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9"><span class="MuiBox-root css-qa46wy"></span><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m">Quebec Liberal Party</span></span></th><td aria-hidden="true" class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1pvywqs"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1a00xmz" style="width: 100%;"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1h79v3e"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1qtgkxp"></div><div class="MuiBox-root css-bslpkj" data-value="16.93548387096774" style="width: 16.9355%;"><span class="MuiBox-root css-trfuzi"><br /></span></div></div></div><br /></td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-25fwok">21</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-25fwok"><br /></td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1dym9ub">21</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1klqdt2">590,171</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1klqdt2">14.4%</td></tr><tr class="MuiTableRow-root css-1gqug66"><th class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-ujbhs0" scope="row"><span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9"><span class="MuiBox-root css-1nmk3tw"></span><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m">Québec Solidaire</span></span></th><td aria-hidden="true" class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1pvywqs"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1a00xmz" style="width: 100%;"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1h79v3e"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1qtgkxp"></div><div class="MuiBox-root css-11mc0xm" data-value="8.870967741935484" style="width: 8.87097%;"><span class="MuiBox-root css-trfuzi"><br /></span></div></div></div><br /></td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-25fwok">11</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-25fwok"><br /></td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1dym9ub">11</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1klqdt2">633,414</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1klqdt2">15.4%</td></tr><tr class="MuiTableRow-root css-1gqug66"><th class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-ujbhs0" scope="row"><span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9"><span class="MuiBox-root css-w8f7uq"></span><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m">Parti Québécois</span></span></th><td aria-hidden="true" class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1pvywqs"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1a00xmz" style="width: 100%;"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1h79v3e"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1qtgkxp"></div><div class="MuiBox-root css-1bjl9la" data-value="2.4193548387096775" style="width: 2.41935%;"><span class="MuiBox-root css-trfuzi"><br /></span></div></div></div><br /></td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-25fwok">3</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-25fwok"><br /></td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1dym9ub">3</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1klqdt2">599,678</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1klqdt2">14.6%</td></tr><tr class="MuiTableRow-root css-1gqug66"><th class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-ujbhs0" scope="row"><span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9"><span class="MuiBox-root css-1o6w421"></span><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m">Conservative Party of Quebec</span></span></th><td aria-hidden="true" class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1pvywqs"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1a00xmz" style="width: 100%;"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1h79v3e"><div class="MuiBox-root css-1qtgkxp"></div><div class="MuiBox-root css-axyqx3" data-value="0" style="width: 0%;"><span class="MuiBox-root css-trfuzi"><br /></span></div></div></div><br /></td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-25fwok">0</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-25fwok"><br /></td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1dym9ub">0</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1klqdt2">530,804</td><td class="MuiTableCell-root MuiTableCell-body MuiTableCell-sizeMedium css-1klqdt2">12.9%</td></tr></tbody></table><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Liberal Party of Quebec, the only federalist party to hold seats, barely managed to form the official opposition by winning seats in and around Montreal and western Quebec. But the Liberals won less of the popular vote than the independence-minded parties which placed third and fourth on October 3rd.</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Now Alberta</span></span><br /></h3><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I have, in moments of gallows humour, predicted that if Quebec were to leave Canada, it would not be the first province to do so. It would be third behind Alberta and British Columbia. Zeihan is humourlessly adamant that Alberta's future is neither to remain part of Canada nor to become sovereign. Alberta's manifest destiny is to join the USA.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuR9xpZbSTWUSTtbnt9Id8QoAapO9WerCrxpm_uuyTpDXmq1ZA_6iiCWBhxfHV9LwEaNeu1IphEY9AbokkPxDktWABdKKqU2TENDl8tDiXVeaRhWOmCG2zc6nJe7ITOQlIv9sj3S1i901ytAZcH_B--55qoANYxd4IOQJtQuhdpZK0S4-__V-4P0HBEQ/s350/D619AE6B8AB79543F17DF3933400B792004C583D.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="234" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuR9xpZbSTWUSTtbnt9Id8QoAapO9WerCrxpm_uuyTpDXmq1ZA_6iiCWBhxfHV9LwEaNeu1IphEY9AbokkPxDktWABdKKqU2TENDl8tDiXVeaRhWOmCG2zc6nJe7ITOQlIv9sj3S1i901ytAZcH_B--55qoANYxd4IOQJtQuhdpZK0S4-__V-4P0HBEQ/s320/D619AE6B8AB79543F17DF3933400B792004C583D.jpg" width="214" /></a></span>With an unencumbered market for its oil and grain, and an influx of young, highly-skilled American labour, Alberta, according to Zeihan, "as a U.S. state would not simply be rich—the richest in the Union, in fact—but would have a vibrantly well-financed and diverse economy that would put its former (and a lot of its newfound) countrymen to shame." Zeihan's evidence for Albert's immanent secession was the election of the Wildrose Party as the official opposition in 2012. The Wildrose Party has since disintegrated but, in recent days, the former leader of the party, Danielle Smith, was elected to lead the United Conservative Party and became <i>de facto</i> Premier of Alberta. Smith has promised a sovereign Alberta inside a strong and thriving Canada. We now have <span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9"><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m"> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tapisme" target="_blank"><i>étapi</i></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tapisme"><i>st </i></a>Premiers in both Quebec and Alberta.</span></span></span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m"> </span></span></span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW3Yg_THVanN1zQmfd7BCXTXq4g_CbrUDz-vK44y9X2dsHwGbI-tHof6FZ7PxThsWogh8qhtVyzgUXVPmjP6GgorteqYUmJC32L6dmTJiV7vn2zzL4Ox7JmPgcaVa-tTUqR0nvpAPNHIJ46rGJkOLreb5KejY0iYEx2fdZ-h7FwfiKUnbx7KRbOTIq0Q/s200/E2C8E0CA41836D0A1B2E8A864A17D9E325B21342.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="132" height="299" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW3Yg_THVanN1zQmfd7BCXTXq4g_CbrUDz-vK44y9X2dsHwGbI-tHof6FZ7PxThsWogh8qhtVyzgUXVPmjP6GgorteqYUmJC32L6dmTJiV7vn2zzL4Ox7JmPgcaVa-tTUqR0nvpAPNHIJ46rGJkOLreb5KejY0iYEx2fdZ-h7FwfiKUnbx7KRbOTIq0Q/w193-h299/E2C8E0CA41836D0A1B2E8A864A17D9E325B21342.jpg" width="193" /></a></h3><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What Keeps a country together?</span></span></h3></div><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Both Zeihan and Tim Marshall display how countries are arbitrary--accidents of history, lines on a map. Sometimes countries hold together because of geography (mountains, deserts, rivers and coastlines) or economics or religion or ethnicity or military might or a common enemy. None of these hold Canada together; in fact, they tend to divide us. I often think of Canada as a poker player who picks up his hand and sees four aces but is reluctant to bet because the guy across the table is smiling like he might have a royal flush. Canada has everything, now and for the future. Canada is a really good idea but I am frequently amazed at how difficult it is to sell this idea to Canadians.</span></span></p><table aria-describedby="table-summary" aria-labelledby="table-title" class="MuiTable-root css-e3mamf"><tbody class="MuiTableBody-root css-1cehlle"><tr class="MuiTableRow-root MuiTableRow-head css-1gqug66"></tr></tbody></table></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m">The Concept formerly known as nationalism</span></span></span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m">In my <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2022/04/the-concept-formerly-known-as.html" target="_blank">presentation to the Association for Canadian Theatre Research</a>, somewhat tongue-in-cheek for an academic plenary, I said:</span></span></span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I grew up being told that this country was held together by a railway.
The railway was sold because the truth was that in an age of
communications the country was really tied together through its public
broadcasting system. As soon as this notion had installed itself, the
budgets of the CBC were massively slashed. Most recently the truism has
become that Canada is held together by its distinctive network of
social programmes: no sooner said than those programmes are under attack
at every level of government in the country. On the basis of recent
history, I am not about to propose that the theatre is or should be a
means of holding the country together. </span></span><span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9"><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m"> </span></span></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m">We need to take a chance and build a unified and independent Canada. And if we are not willing to do that then, at least, let's have an open discussion about why not.</span></span></span></p><p></p><p><span class="MuiBox-root css-70qvj9"><span class="MuiBox-root css-1dr109m"> </span></span><br /></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-80391573219133090562022-09-05T16:58:00.006-07:002022-09-08T06:03:49.401-07:00Who Do You Believe?<h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Who Do you believe? </span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Recently, a friend gave me a copy of Tim Marshall's fascinating book, <i>Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps that Explain Everything about the World</i>. (Thanks Tom!) In <i>Prisoners of Geography</i>, Marshall claims that "The Germans were involved in the machinations that overthrew Ukraine's President Yanukovych in 2014 [. . .] (102). Out of curiosity, I googled "Germany involvement Ukraine overthrow." Two websites came up as most relevant<i>--World Socialist Web Site</i> and<i> </i><i>Vox Ukraine</i>--neither of which answered my question but they gave rise to another question: Who do you believe?</span><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4NBVmNKwcMDPwkYAag9f2felDCmswJeH5cAR6KwW92jDHkoR6uoLVUXJWRDjDpt9No7bhoRrOvKEm3L1QXOboVI2vn7JQwRXdx19Dr8DFQkjBB1LNXfAcmK4a7_QnVit9URBAhQDlW0udMz9uoC9mTmfEE9phO46zSY-0rX_SUehnf9jGet4ZdIgDhQ/s564/Screen%20Shot%202022-08-25%20at%208.25.48%20AM.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="564" data-original-width="381" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4NBVmNKwcMDPwkYAag9f2felDCmswJeH5cAR6KwW92jDHkoR6uoLVUXJWRDjDpt9No7bhoRrOvKEm3L1QXOboVI2vn7JQwRXdx19Dr8DFQkjBB1LNXfAcmK4a7_QnVit9URBAhQDlW0udMz9uoC9mTmfEE9phO46zSY-0rX_SUehnf9jGet4ZdIgDhQ/s320/Screen%20Shot%202022-08-25%20at%208.25.48%20AM.png" width="216" /></a></div><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">What We say is information; what they say is disinformation</span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The article entitled "<a href="https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/event/2014-coup-ukraine" target="_blank">The 2014 coup in Ukraine</a>" on the <i>World Socialist Web Site</i> begins:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial;">The background and implications of the 2014 far-right coup in Kiev,
which overthrew the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, is critical
for understanding the current Ukraine-Russia war. This coup was openly
supported by US and European imperialism and implemented primarily by
far-right shock troops such as the Right Sector and the neo-Nazi Svoboda
Party. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">It represented the temporary culmination of long-standing
efforts by US imperialism to install a puppet regime on the borders of
Russia and brought the world a major step closer to a war between the
largest nuclear powers, the US and Russia. Ukraine has since been
systematically built up as a launching pad for a NATO war against
Russia.</span></p></blockquote><p class="underline underline--large item-title base-color" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The second most relevant URL was a <i>Vox Ukraine</i> article entitled "</span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://voxukraine.org/en/the-maidan-in-2014-is-a-coup-d-etat-a-review-of-italian-and-german-pro-russian-media/" target="_blank">The Maidan in 2014 is a coup d’etat: a review of Italian and German pro-Russian media.</a>" The article is presented as "fact checking" and offers examples of "fake news" and "the truth" which contradicts this "fake news."</span></span></p><h3 class="p1"><b></b></h3><blockquote style="text-align: left;"><p><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Fake: The Maidan in 2014 <span class="s1">is </span>a coup d’etat</span></b></p>
<p class="p1"><span style="font-family: arial;">Since 2014, the German publication RT.DE has mentioned
Maidan in numerous publications as a place where a coup d’etat took
place in Ukraine. A number of Italian media outlets, including Viva.it
and Glindifferenti, share this view. [. . . .]<br /></span></p>
<p class="p1"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">What is the truth?</span></b></p>
<p class="p1"><span style="font-family: arial;">Allegations of an alleged coup d’etat in the downtown of
Kyiv are typical rhetoric of the Kremlin, which thus justifies its own
aggression. Putin himself mentions it again and again [. . . .]<br /></span></p>
<p class="p3"><span style="font-family: arial;">The Revolution of dignity [aka Maidan Uprising] has absolutely no signs <a href="https://www.maidanmuseum.org/uk/node/1217" target="_blank"><span class="s4">of a coup d’etat </span></a>.</span></p></blockquote><p class="p8"></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> <span>So, Who do you believe?</span></span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I have reviewed a number of articles, essays and polls in my modest search for my own modest version of <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2016/11/does-knowledge-require-truth.html" target="_blank">the truth</a>--what is coherent, based on the known and/or agreed-upon facts, and follows logically. The challenge is to separate fact from opinion and, more importantly, fact from spin.</span></span><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Agreed-upon facts</span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Despite the semantic debate, hyperbole, the divergent characterization of the various agents, the word choices and loaded vocabulary, and the inclusion or exclusion of particular details, a number of agreed-upon facts do emerge:</span></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown in 2014. </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Over one hundred people were killed in the process of overthrowing Yanukovych. </span><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The USA supported the overthrow of Yanukovych.</span><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The demonstrations, protests and eventual overthrow occurred when Yanukovych withdrew from a trade agreement with the EU.</span><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What happened in 2014 and how it is interpreted matter: they affect how we understand the war in Ukraine today.</span></span></li></ol><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Interpretations and Spin of the agreed-upon facts </span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I can immediately imagine individuals disputing these "facts," suggesting alternative "facts," or dismissing these five facts as irrelevant. However, based on my reading, these five facts are agreed-upon, self-evident, and unchallenged by <b>both sides</b> of the debate. I highlight <b>both sides </b>to immediately point out that I am not talking about a Russian side or a Ukrainian side or a US side or a NATO or European or Communist or Democratic side. There is a divergence of opinion in each of these cohorts and I immediately dismiss claims that "this is what all Ukrainians think" or "this is what all Russians think" or "this is what all Americans think." The "sides" in this case are those that claim a coup in 2014 and those that deny a coup in 2014. <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2022/06/was-2014-maidan-uprising-in-kyiv-cia.html" target="_blank">I have written on this blog that the evidence of a coup seems strong, even obvious and overt</a>. The fact that I now see significant effort to deny that the Maidan Uprising was "a coup" tells me that the question of a coup is an important one. </span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>1. The President of Ukraine was overthrown</b>. Deniers of a coup will add that Yanukovych was a powerful oligarch, corrupt, a Russian puppet and showing signs of becoming a dictator. What deniers leave unsaid is that Yanukovych was democratically elected. Yanukovych's election was overseen by "</span></span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/08/viktor-yanukovych-ukraine-president-election" target="_blank">Observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) [who] said there were no indications of serious fraud and described the vote as an 'impressive display' of democracy</a>."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b>2. People died in the overthrow. </b>According to the <a href="https://www.maidanmuseum.org/en/node/1094" target="_blank">National Memorial to the Heavenly Hundred Heroes' description of the "Revolution of Dignity,"</a> the Maidan began with 1500 protestors, mostly students, but grew to hundreds of thousands in response to Ukrainian security forces' beating some of the students. The<a href="https://www.maidanmuseum.org/en/node/1094" target="_blank"> National Memorial reports</a> that </span></p><p></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">On the 61st day of Maidan, at the place of protests, the first two
activists were shot. As at that moment, there were already two dead
outside the places of confrontation. It was around a month when the
power structure tried to clean up the city centre from protesters.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Only in the night of 22 February 2014, President Yanukovich escaped
to Russia by using a charter jet. The amount of 108 victims of the
Revolution of Dignity was officially determined. Most of the Heroes of
the Heavenly Hundred died from fire wounds on 20 February 2014.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">According to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_during_the_Revolution_of_Dignity#cite_note-MSV-03.02.14-1" target="_blank">Wikipedia's "List of people killed during the Revolution of Dignity,"</a> there were 130 victims. The Wikipedia list includes 18 police officers. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib7EkJD08e4" target="_blank">BBC news video reports show protestors being fired upon and police being fired upon by protestors.</a></span></span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">3. USA supported the overthrow. </span></span></b><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Over the last eight years, the USA's support for post-2014 Ukraine has been displayed in increasingly bold and frequent headlines. We know that under both presidents Biden and Trump the USA has sent tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine. We know that within weeks of the February 2014 overthrow, the Director of the CIA, John Brennan, was in Ukraine. Two months after the overthrow, <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/22/remarks-press-vice-president-joe-biden-and-ukrainian-prime-minister-arse" target="_blank">Vice-President Joe Biden was in Ukraine to give a press conference </a>with the American choice to lead the government, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">and to promise Ukrainians on behalf of the USA, "</span><span style="font-size: medium;">we’re in the struggle for your very future." </span><span style="font-size: medium;">We know that individuals from both the US government and the CIA have praised CIA collaboration in Ukraine. But what about in February 2014 and earlier? We know about the i<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k" target="_blank">nfamous Nuland/Pyatt telephone conversation</a> planning the post-overthrow government and power structure before the overthrow happened. And, of course, we know that Nuland and Pyatt made themselves available for various photo-ops with the Maidan demonstrators and the eventual over-throwers. We also know of complaints in the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9hOl8TuBUM&t=90s" target="_blank">Ukrainian parliament in 2013 about TechCamps being run in the US embass</a>y in Kyiv to promote civil unrest. In this context, what truly surprises me is that in the various denials of a coup I have read there is no mention of the USA or American involvement.</span></span><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>4. Uprising began when the President withdrew from a trade agreement with the EU.</b> Withdrawal from a trade agreement seems an insufficient cause for the chaos and bloodshed which followed. Clearly the failed negotiations of the trade agreement provided a context for the uprising but what were the underlying reasons? One side argues that in addition to being friendly with Moscow, Yanukovych was making moves toward dictatorship enforced by his security apparatus. The other claims that the uprising was a power grab spearheaded by ultra-nationalist Neo-Nazis. Neither of these claims is a sufficient explanation for the sudden large-scale uprising. Both sides blame the other for the escalation in violence and bloodshed. Both sides were prepared to use deadly force and eventually did. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">As a Canadian, I try to imagine a similar situation here, and there are some parallels between Canada and Ukraine. Like Ukraine, Canada is often geopolitically divided between east and west. More specifically the independence movements in the Donbas and Crimea are at least superficially similar to Quebec's aspirations for greater autonomy and even sovereignty. In Canada, we have come to accept that in order for a Prime Minister and his party to be elected, they must have support in French-speaking Quebec. As reported in the <i>New York Times</i>, President Yanukovych and his Regions Party depended on strong support from Ukraine's eastern provinces in order to be elected. As in Canada, language tensions are a constant feature of Ukrainian politics. 28% of Ukrainians speak Russian, most living in the eastern regions; 22% of Canadians speak French, most living in Quebec. The difference I see is there has, historically, been a strong movement to make Ukrainian the national language to the detriment of Russian and other minority languages. Western Canadians may not always like it but, for the most part, have come to accept the French language and asymmetrical power-sharing with Quebec as facts of life in Canada.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Am I suggesting that the Maidan Uprising can be understood as a language issue? Absolutely not. I am suggesting a myriad of causes--no single one being sufficient-- which coalesced around the EU trade negotiations with the catalyst of US support and encouragement.</span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">5. What Happened in 2014 matters</span></span></h3><p class="page-header" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Denials that the events of 2014 constituted a coup are frequently based on a semantic argument. For example,</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"> <span style="font-family: arial;">the National Memorial article entitled </span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">"<a href="https://www-maidanmuseum-org.translate.goog/uk/node/1217?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp" target="_blank">Why the Revolution of Dignity is not a coup d'état</a>" offers this list of conditions for a coup:</span></span></span></span></p><blockquote>
<p dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: small; vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">– unconstitutionality; </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">- violent character; </span></span><br /><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">– a small number of organizers and participants; </span></span><br /><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">- seizure of power as the main goal.</span></span></span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><u>5.1 Unconstitutionality</u>. At face value, the events of the Maidan Uprising satisfy each of these criteria. However, the article argues that the overthrow of the democratically elected President was constitutional on the grounds that </span><span style="font-size: medium;">"<b><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">the only source of power in Ukraine is the people." </span></span></b><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">The argument echoes Vice President Joe Biden's speech of 22 April 2014, "</span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/22/remarks-press-vice-president-joe-biden-and-ukrainian-prime-minister-arse" target="_blank">that all Ukrainians can agree on the core idea that government exists to serve the people. The people do not exist to serve the government.</a>" It is, of course, a slippery claim that "the people" have the constitutional right to overthrow the elected government, especially for President Joe Biden, as <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/01/06/remarks-by-president-biden-to-mark-one-year-since-the-january-6th-deadly-assault-on-the-u-s-capitol/" target="_blank">he now presents the counter argument in the context of the January 6 attempts to overthrow the election results in the US.</a></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><u>5.2 Violent character</u>. In denying the violent character of events, the <a href="https://www-maidanmuseum-org.translate.goog/uk/node/1217?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp" target="_blank">National Memoria</a>l claims that </span></span></p><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"></span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: small; vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">The
violent actions of the authorities forced the protesters to use means
of self-defense, mostly homemade shields, helmets, batons, and "Molotov
cocktails." </span><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Therefore, the use of self-defense by protesters was forced, provoked by the criminal actions of those in power</span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> [ . . .].</span></span><br /></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">However in a paper entitled "<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266855828_The_Snipers%27_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine" target="_blank">The 'Snipers' Massacre' on the Maidan in Ukraine</a>" presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in 2015, <a class="nova-legacy-e-link nova-legacy-e-link--color-inherit nova-legacy-e-link--theme-bare" href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ivan-Katchanovski">Ivan Katchanovski</a> of the University of Ottawa concludes</span></span><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span>[ . . .] that the massacre was a false flag
operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of
the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. [The study] found various
evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right
organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic
parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were
located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. The various
evidence that the protesters were killed from these locations include
some 70 testimonies, primarily by Maidan protesters, several videos of
“snipers” targeting protesters from these buildings, comparisons of
positions of the specific protesters at the time of their killing and
their entry wounds, and bullet impact signs.</span></span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In the detailed evidence and analysis of his 80-page report, Katchanovski makes a brief reference to the fact <i>Globe and Mail</i> reporter Paul Waldie was in the Hotel Ukraine, a stronghold of the Maidan protestors, during the massacre, and witnessed protestors carrying guns which were used to kill police and, according to Katchanovski, their fellow protestors in order to discredit the government. In his report for the <i>Globe and Mail</i>,</span><span style="font-size: medium;"> "<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/latest-from-ukraine-kiev-calm-after-medieval-clash/article16998295/" target="_blank">Globe in Kiev: Yanukovych regime’s hold is shaken after a deadly day</a>,"</span></span> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Waldie recounts that </span></span></p><p></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: small;">Some protesters had guns as well and at least one could be seen taking
aim at officers. A group of protesters, some carrying guns, also rushed
into the hotel in the morning to get a better vantage point to attack
police across the street. At least 37 people died, with some reports
putting the figure as high as 70. Several hundred were also wounded.</span></span></p></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span><p></p><p class="c-primary-title hl-3 hl-3-md font-pratt-bold c-primary-title-news" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In the body of his study, Katchanovski claims that Maidan protestors were the first to use deadly force, i.e. "live ammunition": "analyses of various sources of evidence indicate that the cease-fire agreement was broken by the Maidan side in the early morning, when small groups of armed protesters started to shoot from the Music Conservatory building with live ammunition [. . . ]." <br /></span></span></p><p class="c-primary-title hl-3 hl-3-md font-pratt-bold c-primary-title-news" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>5.3 A small number of organizers and participants. </i>For deniers of a coup, the "Revolution of Dignity" (aka Maidan Uprising) was the will of the great majority of the Ukrainian people. For example, both <a href="https://voxukraine.org/en/the-maidan-in-2014-is-a-coup-d-etat-a-review-of-italian-and-german-pro-russian-media/" target="_blank">Vox Ukraine</a> and the <a href="https://www-maidanmuseum-org.translate.goog/uk/node/1217?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp" target="_blank">National Memorial </a>claim that over 8.5 million Ukrainians, 20% of the population, took part in protests against the government during the Revolution of Dignity. The evidence for these numbers is a poll carried out in Ukraine in October 2014.</span></span></p><p class="c-primary-title hl-3 hl-3-md font-pratt-bold c-primary-title-news" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: small;">According to a sociological<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://dif.org.ua/article/richnitsya-maydanu-opituvannya-gromadskoi-ta-ekspertnoi-dumki" target="_blank"><span class="s4">poll </span></a>conducted
in October 2014 by the Ilko Kucheriv Foundation for Democratic
Initiatives, about 20% of Ukraine’s population, more than 8.5 million
people, took part in peaceful rallies. The poll showed that most
citizens perceived participating in the protests as a conscious struggle
for their rights</span></span>.</p></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span><p></p><p class="c-primary-title hl-3 hl-3-md font-pratt-bold c-primary-title-news" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">However, <a href="https://dif-org-ua.translate.goog/article/richnitsya-maydanu-opituvannya-gromadskoi-ta-ekspertnoi-dumki?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp" target="_blank">the poll being referred to</a> did not claim "8.5 million people took part in peaceful rallies" nor did it show "that most citizens perceived participating in the protests as a conscious struggle for their rights." According to the poll data,11% of the 2,025 respondents (i.e., 223 people) claimed to have "participated in Euromaidan events" and 9% "helped the protestors" in some way. Given the context of the survey within celebrations of the Revolution of Dignity, it is perhaps more striking that <a href="https://dif-org-ua.translate.goog/article/richnitsya-maydanu-opituvannya-gromadskoi-ta-ekspertnoi-dumki?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp" target="_blank">81.6% of interviewees responded "I did not participate."</a></span></span></p><p class="c-primary-title hl-3 hl-3-md font-pratt-bold c-primary-title-news" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Contrary to the claim that "</span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The poll showed that <b>most
citizens</b> perceived participating in the protests as a conscious struggle
for their rights," the poll actually showed that 37.9% shared this perception and the great majority of them were from Western Ukraine; i.e., 70.5%. According to the poll (being cited by coup deniers), 31.2% of respondents perceived the Euromaidan/Revolution of Dignity/Maidan Uprising to be a "<i>coup d'état</i>." <br /></span></span></p><p><b><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">What, in your opinion, was Euromaidan? </span><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Regional differences</span></span></b></p> <div class="table-wrapper" style="overflow-x: auto;"><table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="width: 278px;"><p> </p></td> <td style="width: 51px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">West</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 57px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Center</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 69px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">South</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 50px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">East</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 64px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Donbas</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 69px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Ukraine in general</span></span></p></td></tr> <tr><td style="width: 278px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">A coup d'état carried out with the support of the West</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 51px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">2.4</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 57px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">5.3</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 69px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">14.2</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 50px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">15.4</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 64px;"><p><b><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">50.7</span></span></b></p></td> <td style="width: 69px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">15.5</span></span></p></td></tr> <tr><td style="width: 278px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">A coup d'état to be prepared by the political opposition</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 51px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">5.5</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 57px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">12.8</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 69px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">19.4</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 50px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">24.4</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 64px;"><p><b><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">21.4</span></span></b></p></td> <td style="width: 69px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">15.7</span></span></p></td></tr> <tr><td style="width: 278px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Spontaneous protest of the population</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 51px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">17.3</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 57px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">17.9</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 69px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">21.8</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 50px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">21.6</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 64px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">7,8</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 69px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">17.2</span></span></p></td></tr> <tr><td style="width: 278px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Conscious struggle of citizens united to protect their rights</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 51px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">70.5</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 57px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">47.9</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 69px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">20.1</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 50px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">22.3</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 64px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">3.2</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 69px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">37.9</span></span></p></td></tr> <tr><td style="width: 278px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">HARD TO TELL</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 51px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">4.3</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 57px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">15.8</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 69px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">16.6</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 50px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">16.2</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 64px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">16.6</span></span></p></td> <td style="width: 69px;"><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">13.8</span></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>5.4 Seizure of power as main goal.</i> In denying a coup, the <a href="https://www-maidanmuseum-org.translate.goog/uk/node/1217?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp" target="_blank">National Memorial </a>claims that the goal of the Maidan Uprising was not "seizure of power" but "</span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">the signing of the Association Agreement with the EU." The claim is followed by a list of idealistic ambitions almost none of which were achieved following Maidan. The "seizure of power" may not have been the intended goal in everyone's mind, but we know with certainty that the major figures behind the Maidan did come to power in the aftermath: most notably, </span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_Poroshenko" target="_blank">Petro Poroshenko</a> became President,</span> </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk" target="_blank">Arseniy Yatsenyu</a> became Prime Minister, and </span><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span><span><span></span></span></span><span><span><span></span></span></span><span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitali_Klitschko" target="_blank">Vitali Klitschko</a> became Mayor of Kyiv.</span></span></span></span></span> </p> <i><b><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"></span></span></b></i><p class="c-primary-title hl-3 hl-3-md font-pratt-bold c-primary-title-news" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><p></p><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">And, of course, what is left out of denials of a coup is the role of western governments. As outlined in the <i>Globe and Mail</i>, 20 February 2014--</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-new-ecnomoic-sanctions-ukraine/article16997843/" target="_blank">Canada imposes new sanctions on senior Ukrainian officials</a><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">"--Canada, the USA and the EU had shown their strong support for the Maidan Uprising in advance of the overthrow of the Viktor Yanukovych government. Whatever your opinion of Maidan as a coup or not, we can agree that understanding the war means understanding Maidan.</span></span></span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><span face="nyt-imperial, georgia, "times new roman", times, serif" style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(54, 54, 54); color: #363636;"></span></span></span></span></p><p></p><p></p></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><p class="p3"><span class="s5"></span></p><p class="underline underline--large item-title base-color" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><p></p><p></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-57424049215357161182022-08-07T15:54:00.006-07:002022-09-06T04:40:00.605-07:00The War in Afghanistan that the USA Won<h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"We Won!" </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">According to <i>Charlie Wilson's War</i>, by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Crile_III" target="_blank">George Crile</a>, when the last Russian troops were driven out of Afghanistan by the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/mujahideen-Islam" target="_blank">mujahideen</a> (Islamic "holy warriors") in February 1989, Milt Bearden, head of the CIA's Islamabad station cabled simply "We won." Crile's work brings together a wealth of knowledge and experience, in-depth insight into the issues and geopolitics, and extensive research into and interviews with all the major players. Beyond a detailed history of the USA's covert war against the Russians in Afghanistan,<i> Charlie Wilson's War</i> provides a guided tour of the internal operations of the CIA and a study of the fraught relationship between the US government and its spy agency. Crile details how a motley crew of characters--Congressman <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson_(Texas_politician)" target="_blank">Charlie Wilson</a>, socialite <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Herring" target="_blank">Joanne Herring</a>, rogue CIA agent <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gust_Avrakotos" target="_blank">Gust Avrakotos</a>, and young savant warfare strategist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_G._Vickers" target="_blank">Mike Vickers</a>, to name but a few--managed to manipulate global politics involving the USA, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Nicaragua, Iran and China, and, arguably, provoked the collapse of the Soviet Union in November 1989. In short, the book tells us how the CIA works, how the American government works, and even, in some measure, how the world works--and it's never quite as we might imagine.</span></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKkEUm-A-fDwC0Ac0PrGr_zN09G2FEOzdY_LfruOG5ruz7OnZJ4xkh4rhHbBksStDIu6W4bXu20YpEZvOYkNn_v4fgQd5h5UGuCkNTTTvxdOeGpQdeKWY8lzaqFnid30umtWcy5hOeC2tQuQwSUeUhXt8dEoKasv1Urfw-mQEDRZqjz1bTEjuxJnx0KQ/s475/29358._SY475_.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="475" data-original-width="312" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKkEUm-A-fDwC0Ac0PrGr_zN09G2FEOzdY_LfruOG5ruz7OnZJ4xkh4rhHbBksStDIu6W4bXu20YpEZvOYkNn_v4fgQd5h5UGuCkNTTTvxdOeGpQdeKWY8lzaqFnid30umtWcy5hOeC2tQuQwSUeUhXt8dEoKasv1Urfw-mQEDRZqjz1bTEjuxJnx0KQ/s320/29358._SY475_.jpg" width="210" /></a></div><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What Is a "proxy war"? </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I was drawn to <i>Charlie Wilson's War</i> because it opened a door to understanding what is happening in Ukraine today. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, like the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, (and for that matter like the Vietnam War and the Korean War) is a proxy war between Russia and the USA. In the simplest of terms, a "proxy war" means the hegemonic nations at war aren't necessarily the people who are actually fighting on the battlefield. I had thought the cynical expression about the USA's "fighting to the last Ukrainian" was original to the Russia-Ukraine war. However, the expression is used repeatedly in <i>Charlie Wilson's War</i> as the CIA struggled to avoid the perception that "The USA was ready to fight to the last Afghan."</span></span> <br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">An "Unprovoked" "proxy war"?</span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The parallels between the Russia-Afghanistan-USA war and the Russia-Ukraine-USA war are multiple. But the divergences are even more instructive. The most obvious similarity between the two wars is that in both cases they are "proxy wars" between Russia and the USA (and its NATO allies). This most obvious fact about the war in Ukraine--that it is a proxy war--is the least likely fact to be reported in Western media. This fact cannot be repeated because it contradicts a dominant theme in Western reports that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was "unprovoked." Of all the moral, legal, geopolitical and even pragmatic insults and aspersions that can justifiable describe the Russian invasion, the one that makes the least sense and is the least credible is the one we hear most often, that it was "unprovoked." </span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">An Overt war versus a covert war: The remarkable differences</span></span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The key difference between how the USA supported and armed the Afghan tribal warlords and how the USA is now supporting and arming the Ukrainian military and Ukraine's various militias is the difference between a covert and an overt war. In my previous post I asked the question "<a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2022/06/was-2014-maidan-uprising-in-kyiv-cia.html" target="_blank">Was the 2014 Maidan Uprising in Kyiv a covert CIA operation?</a>" and concluded that it could hardly be called covert. It seems possible, maybe even probable that the Orange Revolution in 2004 overturning the presidential election in Ukraine was a US-backed operation. It seems evident and obvious that the Maidan Revolution in 2014 was a US operation and there was surprising little effort made to hide the fact. When Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt's telephone conversation planning who would run the Ukrainian government after the 2014 coup was leaked to the public, Nuland's only comment was that the leak was "good spy-craft." She didn't even bother to deny the implication that the Maidan Uprising was a US-supported overthrow of the government. Instead, she and Ambassador Pyatt presented themselves for photo-ops with the demonstrators who would, shortly afterwards, overthrow the democratically-elected government in a bloody coup. </span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="314" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WV9J6sxCs5k" width="485" youtube-src-id="WV9J6sxCs5k"></iframe></div><p> </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Contrast makes the point </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">As recounted in <i>Charlie Wilson's War</i>, in the 1980s, the CIA was obsessed with keeping their operations clandestine in order to avoid provoking Russia into escalation: invading Pakistan or using nuclear weapons or both. As Crile points out, the war in Afghanistan was barely even reported in US media. The CIA went to great extents to hide the source of the new high-tech weapons they were funneling to the mujahideen but, at the same time, they had the challenge of muting the politicians and hawks at home in the USA who were calling for escalation and threatening to blow the lid off the covert operation. In Ukraine, from the 2004 overthrow to the 2014 coup to <a href="https://systemupdate.substack.com/p/video-transcript-the-white-houses?s=r" target="_blank">American bio-labs established in Ukraine</a> to the tens of billions of dollars in weapons flowing from the USA to Ukraine, (not to mention the expansion of NATO to Russia's borders and the <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/22/remarks-press-vice-president-joe-biden-and-ukrainian-prime-minister-arse" target="_blank">declarations in Ukraine of then Vice President Joe Biden</a>) the Americans have publicly goaded the Russians into escalation, daring them to use nuclear weapons and/or to invade a NATO ally. The same people who claim that Vladimir Putin is amoral and insane seem equally convinced that he won't do the obviously amoral and insane and use his substantial nuclear arsenal. </span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"The Enemy of my enemy is my friend." </span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Pakistan's role was crucial in ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan. The Afghan forces would have been unable to fight without being able to retreat, regroup and be rearmed and resupplied through northern Pakistan. The Americans' greatest concern was that the Russians would continue their invasion into Pakistan. Had they done so, they might likely have been victorious in the region.</span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Four NATO countries share a border with Ukraine--Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania. If Russia were to attack any of these countries, the USA and all NATO members would, by treaty, be obligated to join the conflict. A nuclear World War III would begin.</span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">One of the biggest differences between Afghanistan in the 1980s and Ukraine in the 2020s is the shifting of alliances. Most importantly, in the 1980s, China and the Soviet Union were considered mortal enemies. In the 1980s, China manufactured weapons for the CIA which were distributed through Pakistan to arm the Afghans against the Russians. Currently, the USA is imposing sanctions and sabre rattling against both China and Russia, forcing an alliance between these powerful, erstwhile unfriendly neighbours who now present a public face as the best of friends.<br /></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpGjer2rA9J--XkQ3eoscLL3fRDQofatYDnu4fnyrbogEyM8EwLC_Pl4mWIcCgj5vBopy7bD8_dRkxwslxhuEeQUuDlNkuXWaOGq6pDAp-F1VMqahgdY7hCzwfgCrTmOJuJVOGuLboj91FPr2xknzL3ed8392zar-DrEdk3uNh0yTHdOWjb0ES_j_TDA/s900/ukraine-oblasts-map.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="661" data-original-width="900" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpGjer2rA9J--XkQ3eoscLL3fRDQofatYDnu4fnyrbogEyM8EwLC_Pl4mWIcCgj5vBopy7bD8_dRkxwslxhuEeQUuDlNkuXWaOGq6pDAp-F1VMqahgdY7hCzwfgCrTmOJuJVOGuLboj91FPr2xknzL3ed8392zar-DrEdk3uNh0yTHdOWjb0ES_j_TDA/w537-h300/ukraine-oblasts-map.gif" width="537" /></a></span></div><br /><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Comparing Outcomes: Afghanistan versus Ukraine</span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">We now know that once the Afghans had driven out the Russians using American technology, weaponry and training, the various tribal warlords began to turn on each other. The Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Landen emerged from the chaos as dominant forces in Afghanistan. In 2001, from their bases in Afghanistan, bin Landen and a team of his fellow Saudis developed a plan to crash commercial jet liners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the White House. (Since the CIA had made arrangements for Saudi Arabia to supply fully half of all financial aid going to the mujahideen, it is possible that Afghan warriors never fully realized that they were being armed by the USA.) What followed was an American invasion of Afghanistan (after a devastating and pointless invasion of Iraq) and a war that lasted 20 years, destroyed lives, cost trillions of dollars and ended in a US surrender returning the Taliban to power.<br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">There are enormous differences between Afghanistan and Ukraine, but in both cases you have the USA pouring billions of dollars into countries known for their corruption which have ongoing civil wars and long-standing internal strife. In both cases, you have the USA supplying massive funds and armaments seemingly without paying much attention to who exactly they are funding and arming. In Afghanistan, the influx of massive amounts of US capital created a kleptocracy. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai" target="_blank">Hamid Karzai</a>, the USA's choice to lead Afghanistan, attempted to hold the country together through nepotism, cronyism, bribes and favours, and failed miserably.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk" target="_blank">Arseniy Yatsenyu</a>, the American choice to lead Ukraine after 2014, only lasted two years in office. </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Petro Poroshenko, the post-2014, anti-communist President of Ukraine was not only voted out of office after one term but had to flee the country, accused of high treason. </span></span></span><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Volodymyr Zelensky, the actor who played the President of Ukraine in a TV comedy series and was then elected President of Ukraine in reality, came out of nowhere--sort of.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Since the Russian invasion, Zelensky has been aptly compared to Winston Churchill. However, <a href=" https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/zelensky-not-all-hes-portrayed-as-by-western-media-bernardi/video/f9154f6b83b88e148ce7a7dccd2baf58" target="_blank">Zelensky's image has been showing signs of tarnish in recent weeks</a> as Amnesty International has accused Ukrainian forces of war crimes, he has fired two of his closest advisors and his ambassador to Germany, and carried out extensive purges of suspected pro-Russians throughout his government. Zelensky's attempts to make a direct appeal to China's Xi Jinping is unlikely to please Washington. It is worth remembering that Churchill was voted out of office two months after the end of World War II. </span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">We know from the Nuland/Pyatt telephone call that the plan was to keep the ultra-nationalist, right-wing extremists (</span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleh_Tyahnybok" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Oleh Tyahnybok</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> and </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitali_Klitschko" target="_blank">Vitali Klitschko</a>) </span></span>out of government. However, since the invasion, the right-wing groups and their militias have proven to be the most skilled and determined fighters, and have become heroes, even to the minorities, Roma, Jews, moderates, socialists, and LGBTs who were their victims in the past. <br /></span></span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><b>What Does victory look like?</b></span></span></span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><b>Russian victory</b>. Interviewed on "Underground<b>" </b></span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">on RT (<i>Russia Today</i>--which is now banned in the West), <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bolton" target="_blank">John Bolton</a>, Trump's one-time National Security Advisor, was to the point: Russia has no interest in holding Ukraine. Bolton claimed that once Russia had control of the eastern provinces, Crimea and a southern port, they could and likely would, if necessary, lay waste to the rest of the Ukraine.</span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">In the event of Russian victory, a best case scenario would be a Ukraine divided between East and West (not unlike North and South Korea, China and Taiwan, India and Pakistan, the countries of the former Yugoslavia, etc--the list of similar examples gets pretty long).</span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">I have heard the claim expressed with great conviction that if Putin defeats Ukraine he will continue to expand the Russian empire and invade neighbouring countries. I fail to see the logic or any evidence for this prognosis. I have to assume that it is based on the underlying assumption that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked and Putin is a power-hungry madman. I suppose part of my reluctance to accept this analysis is that it implies that Russia must be defeated at any cost and makes a nuclear war inevitable.<br /></span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><b>Ukrainian victory</b>. The results of a Ukrainian victory are much more complicated and difficult to predict. The best case scenario from a Western perspective is that the war-weary people of Russia will rise up and overthrow the regime. However, Putin has shown what he can and effectively will do to maintain his dictatorship. Moreover, from a Russian perspective, the people have seen this scenario before in recent history. With liberalization and greater openness to the West under Gorbachev then Yeltsin, bringing down the wall, agreeing to the re-unification of Germany, Russians expected immediate prosperity, security, and that there would be no expansion of NATO. Whether or not Russian expectations were justified is much debated, but it is clear that the Russian people didn't get what they expected. Can the West reasonably expect the Russian people to buy the same set of promises again?</span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">The least likely and worst case scenario would be the collapse of the Russian nation-state. The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkMlLkCRmRQ" target="_blank">Caspienreport </a>offers a detailed analysis of why a collapse is unlikely, but at the same time, how the collapse (if ever it should happen) would lead to decades of wars as neighbouring countries begin to claim the territories of a defeated Russia.</span><br /><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="347" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dkMlLkCRmRQ" width="501" youtube-src-id="dkMlLkCRmRQ"></iframe></div><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><b>Ukraine Back to the future?</b><br /></span></span></span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Ukraine cannot return to the days before the Russian invasion (2014 to 2022) because that would be a return to the civil war between East and West. Ukraine cannot return to the days before 2014 or 2004 because that would be a return to Russian hegemony. The great hope is that a strong, independent, unified Ukraine will join the European Union and NATO. However, with or without Zelensky, in the aftermath of the war, an ultra-nationalist government and the bloody purge of Russians, pro-Russians and suspected Russian sympathizers seem likely. Such "ethnic cleansing" would prevent Ukraine's membership in the EU and NATO. Paradoxically, the same cadre which might give Ukraine a victory might also prevent Ukraine from enjoying the benefits of victory. The rise of a Ukrainian Neo-Nazi equivalent of the </span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Landen isn't the worst possible nightmare, but it would be a nightmare.</span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Update</span></span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">This CBS documentary looks at how Ukrainian forces are being supplied and armed: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/embed/g5OgTXkzzLy9/" target="_blank">Arming Ukraine: A NATO and Western Perspective</a></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">In interviews, the embedded CBS reporter is told that "only 30% of the supplies are getting to the frontlines."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">From <i>The Grayzone</i>:</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://thegrayzone.com/2022/08/09/cbs-documentary-ukraine-military-aid-us-govt/" target="_blank">CBS deletes documentary promo on corrupt Ukraine military aid after US gov’t pressure</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><b> </b></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><b>Update 2</b></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">From <a href="https://thegrayzone.com/2022/07/15/us-intel-officer-targeted-by-john-bolton-reacts-to-coup-plot-confession/" target="_blank"><i>The Grayzone</i></a>, in an interview with Futon Armstrong, the USA's National Intelligence Officer for Latin America, Armstrong provides the following analysis of the various levels of US-supported coups.<br /></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><b><strong>FULTON ARMSTRONG: </strong>Coups, we have to be careful. Just a
teeny bit of history here, that when the US government supports coups,
it’s done on different levels. There’s the highly political level where
the policy is to achieve regime change without actually getting into
the mud with potential coup plotters. A second level would be one where
we establish it as a policy, and we, through various players in the US
government, including covert players but also overt players, go out and
sort of look for people who say, think, sort of ‘help me rid me of this
priest’ sort of stuff. And then the third one is when you’re hands-on
and you’re actually recruiting people, arming people, and setting
particular operations in motion. </b></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> Note: In my blog post (above) it is clear, evident and uncontested that the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014 was a "level two" US-supported coup. There is reason to suspect but insufficient evidence available to someone like me that the coup in Kyiv went all the way to a "level three."<br /></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-47634591089927625732022-06-27T06:42:00.013-07:002022-12-26T06:05:50.110-08:00Was the 2014 Maidan Uprising in Kyiv a CIA Covert Operation?<h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Charlie Wilson's War </i></span></span><br /></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This week I watched <i>Charlie Wilson's War</i> a second and third time on Netflix. Now I have to read the book: George Crile's<i> Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History</i>. The real-life story upon which the book and movie are based is that in the 1980s a Texas congressman, an evangelical Texas socialite, a group of CIA agents, the President of Pakistan and some Saudi financiers got together and funneled a billion-dollars worth of advanced weapons to the mujahideen in Afghanistan. The purpose of the operation according to the gleeful declarations of the CIA operatives in the film was "to kill Russians . . . to kill lots and lots of Russians." The irony, which most people are aware of today, is that those same weapons would eventually be used to kill Americans and their western allies in a war that lasted from October, 2001, until the Taliban declared victory over the USA in August, 2021.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5J_yRNFtozRNTCZ1NqIoJGk7GLwO_jzaaHPxKkVBUibd9noKdd1wuHGnW1xhgGrCW82m6hSBFGTjXb_1IzV0zU0EyCCC1l0tTAlGuxh1xN-hzBGRt1GI0NUr6FRhJuCttxe2tJjybXdDVZhpUygnTIBbaQyp60xYoJ3HQDNCptLNg2nteV4NwBaGTaA/s700/charlie-wilsons-war-cinema-quad-movie-poster-(1).jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="535" data-original-width="700" height="306" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5J_yRNFtozRNTCZ1NqIoJGk7GLwO_jzaaHPxKkVBUibd9noKdd1wuHGnW1xhgGrCW82m6hSBFGTjXb_1IzV0zU0EyCCC1l0tTAlGuxh1xN-hzBGRt1GI0NUr6FRhJuCttxe2tJjybXdDVZhpUygnTIBbaQyp60xYoJ3HQDNCptLNg2nteV4NwBaGTaA/w400-h306/charlie-wilsons-war-cinema-quad-movie-poster-(1).jpg" width="400" /></a></span></span></div><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Following the money . . . </span></span><i><br /></i></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Charlie Wilson's War</i> seems oddly relevant today. The US is sending Ukraine 40 billion dollars in military and humanitarian aid, in addition to weapons being sent under the new Lend-Lease Act. Ironically, the original Lend-Lease Act was established during World War II to send military hardware to Russia. Although the aid packages are always presented as gestures of compassion toward Ukrainian widows and orphans, it seems obvious that the end result will be a lot more people dying, and the biggest chunk of these monies will end up in the coffers of <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-04-12/pentagon-asks-top-8-u-s-arms-makers-to-meet-on-ukraine-sources" target="_blank">the eight major US weapons manufacturers.</a></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3VM_-YkO6PCOHOd92BvKAHSVXBcSnp6peo1I3s75B2OLF0DRFmGlx5alNdzM3mVZVXRhIhFZDkgNXCiHzrS5IevbJA-Z2lsIBSTMVHEyvJTvWuwRvNlm4p21oKp1eG59bvTEKfDl3Rsfb2u_NNp_FFtWpxnCO8oUZ-AqPc8oOOTwPGvTdGPaBcnJvcQ/s900/FOYhJvfX0AEUkU1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="506" data-original-width="900" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3VM_-YkO6PCOHOd92BvKAHSVXBcSnp6peo1I3s75B2OLF0DRFmGlx5alNdzM3mVZVXRhIhFZDkgNXCiHzrS5IevbJA-Z2lsIBSTMVHEyvJTvWuwRvNlm4p21oKp1eG59bvTEKfDl3Rsfb2u_NNp_FFtWpxnCO8oUZ-AqPc8oOOTwPGvTdGPaBcnJvcQ/w400-h225/FOYhJvfX0AEUkU1.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></span></div><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">According to <i>Servant of the People</i>, Ukraine is so corrupt it's funny</span></span></b> <br /></span><p></p><p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Ukraine is frequently portrayed as a corrupt nation. <i> Operation Odessa</i>, the documentary about a Colombian drug cartel's attempt to buy a nuclear submarine, was truly gobsmack-worthy. In the Ukrainian comedy series <i>Servant of the People</i>, staring Volodymyr Zelensky, the underlying premise is endemic Ukrainian corruption. Even testimony before the US congress, though it was focused on whether or not President Trump should be impeached for his attempts to get the dirt on Hunter Biden's business in Ukraine, showed an underlying assumption that corruption in Ukraine was rampant. No doubt when the people of Ukraine elected Volodymyr Zelensky and his Servant of the People Party, in 2019, they thought he would take on corruption the same way he did as the fictional President of Ukraine in the TV comedy. </span></span> </span></p><h3 class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> <b><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Russia's "unprovoked" invasion</span></span></b><br /></span></h3><p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Although we are bombarded with coverage of the war in Ukraine these days, the country's cloak-and-dagger history makes it difficult to grasp where we are right now and how we got here. Western legacy, mainstream media wants me to believe that Vladimir Putin, "unprovoked," decided to invade Ukraine because he's a nasty, immoral gangster, because he's an egomaniac and megalomaniac, because it might add to his personal wealth and prestige, because he wants the Soviet Union back. All these claims might be true but they don't add up to an explanation for the war at this point in history unless we add that Putin is irrational and insane, at which point the narrative really begins to lose credibility.</span></span></p><h3 class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Russian Seizure of Crimea in February, 2014</span></span></b><br /></span></h3><p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Timelines explaining the war in Ukraine often begin in 2014. In 2014 Russian forces seized Crimea which was, at the time, part of Ukraine. According to the most recent census, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea" target="_blank">67.9% of Crimean residents consider themselves Russian</a>. After the Russian invasion of Crimea, the USA and other Western governments began imposing sanctions on Russia. Why did Russia invade Crimea in 2014?</span></span></p><h3 class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The "Maidan Uprising" and overthrow of Victor Yanucovich in January, 2014</span></span></b> <br /></span></h3><p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">In Ukraine, 2014 was the year of the "Maidan Uprising," also known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan" target="_blank">Euromaidan</a> and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity" target="_blank">Revolution of Dignity</a>, and the presumed cause of the timing of Russia's seizure of Crimea. Numerous sources I have encountered claim that <a href="https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/06/04/how-and-why-the-u-s-government-perpetrated-the-2014-coup-in-ukraine/" target="_blank">the "Maidan Uprising" was a covert CIA operation</a>. Why should I believe that this is true? And even if it is true, what difference does it make?</span></span></p><h3 class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Does Anybody really believe the Ukrainian Revolution was a CIA coup? </span></span></b><br /></span></h3><p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Here is a short list of some of the people who claim that the "Maidan Uprising" was a CIA covert operation:</span></span></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcp0TYx_eUI" target="_blank">Richard Black, retired colonel, </a></span><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcp0TYx_eUI" target="_blank">U.S. Marines and U.S. Army JAG Corps and former Virginia State Senator, interviewed on the "Executive Intelligence Review" of the Schiller Institute</a></span></li><li><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14o7KR64Ntc" target="_blank">Laurence Wilkerson, retired US army colonel and former Chief of Staff of Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Jay Paul on The Analysis.news</a></span></li><li><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/06/04/how-and-why-the-u-s-government-perpetrated-the-2014-coup-in-ukraine/" target="_blank">Eric Zeusse, "How and Why the US Government Perpetrated the 2014 Coup in Ukraine," in moderndiplomancy.eu </a></span></li><li><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-credible-evidence-that-Ukraines-2014-revolution-was-due-to-a-CIA-coup/answer/Kylee-Smith-83?ch=10&oid=347200432&share=acb46ac0&srid=1BDD&target_type=answer" target="_blank">On Quora, Kylee Smith, who describes herself as a "Social Science Major," has compiled a list of links and quotations in answer to the question: "Is there any credible evidence that Ukraine's 2014 revolution was a CIA coup?"</a></span></li><li><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://fair.org/home/what-you-should-really-know-about-ukraine/comment-page-1/" target="_blank">Bryce Green. "What you should <i>really</i> know about Ukraine?" in <i>Fair</i>.</a><br /></span></li></ul><h3 class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">If it looks like a duck . . . <br /></span></span></h3><p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Part of the reason we might imagine<span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> that the 2014 Ukrainian revolution was a CIA op is because it looks like the CIA plots that we already know about: a riot bought and paid for by the CIA brought down </span><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span><span face=""helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;"><span face=""helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;"><span face=""helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;"><span face=""helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh" target="_blank">Mohammad Mosaddegh</a></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">in Iran in order to protect US oil interest, the overthrow of Allende in Chile to support US copper interests, the coup against Arbenz in Guatamala at the behest of the United Fruit company. </span></span></p><p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">We know that one of the <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/11/covert-operation-ukrainian-independence-haunts-cia-00029968" target="_blank">very first covert CIA operations was an attempt to infiltrate Ukraine in 1949, and the operation went horribly wrong</a>. In 2004, the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/The-Orange-Revolution-and-the-Yushchenko-presidency#ref986649" target="_blank">Orange Revolution</a>, weeks of protests in Kyiv, led to the overturning of the presidential election won by Viktor Yanucovych and bringing to power his rival the the US-preferred, pro-European candidate, Viktor Yushchenco. In the presidential elections of 2010, Yushchenco, who, according to Western reports was the choice of the people of Ukraine, finished a distant third with 5.45% of the vote. And once again, Viktor Yanucovych won the presidential run-off vote. In 2014, for the second time in ten years, Yanucovych won the presidential election but lost the presidency because of demonstrations and riots in the streets of Kyiv.<br /></span></span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Why Overthrow Viktor Yanukovych? </span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Why would the CIA want to overthrow Viktor Yanukovych, the democratically-elected President of Ukraine? The Western narrative is that Yanukovych was pro-Russian and corrupt. Neither claim is particularly accurate or meaningful. As reported on BBC, Radio Free Europe and the <i>Kyiv Post</i>, and compiled on Wikipedia:</span></span></p><p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"></p><blockquote style="text-align: left;"><div class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych" target="_blank">Yanukovych said, "Ukraine's integration with the EU remains our
strategic aim", with a "balanced policy, which will protect our national
interests both on our eastern border – I mean with Russia – and of
course with the European Union".</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#cite_note-roadmap-78">[77]</a><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-79"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#cite_note-79">[78]</a></sup> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych" target="_blank">According to Yanukovych, Ukraine must be a "</a><a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_state" title="Neutral state">Neutral state</a>" <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych" target="_blank">which should be part of a "collective defence system which the European Union, </a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO" title="NATO">NATO</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych" target="_blank"> and Russia will take part in." Yanukovych wants Ukraine to "neither join </a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO" title="NATO">NATO</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych" target="_blank">nor the </a><a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSTO" title="CSTO">CSTO</a>".<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-neutral_80-0"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#cite_note-neutral-80">[79]</a></sup> </span></span></div></blockquote><p class="firstHeading mw-first-heading" id="firstHeading" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Yanukovych's ambition was for Ukraine to be part of an EU trading block centered in Brussels and a Eurasian trading block run from Moscow at the same time. The world today continues to work according to a Cold War logic: either you are with the USA and its allies and alliances, ideologically, politically, militarily and economically, or you must be dealt with. Playing at neutrality, being a bridge, enjoying the best of both worlds, global collaboration and trade deals risk running counter to American interests and are simply not viable options.</span></span><br /></p><h3 class="firstHeading mw-first-heading" id="firstHeading" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> Why did President Yanukovych break off negotiations with the EU?</span></span><br /></h3><p class="firstHeading mw-first-heading" id="firstHeading" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Western narrative is that Yanukovych was a Russian puppet and Vladimir Putin was pulling his strings. The metaphor is nicely succinct but not very informative. The beginning of the end for Yanucovych was when he broke off negotiations for a</span></span> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine_Association_Agreement" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement</span></span></a><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">. Reports of the negotiations from 2013 (before everything exploded in 2014) tend to offer more information. See, for example, the report from Reuters: "<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-ukraine-idUSBRE9BA0S120131211" target="_blank">EU Talking to IMF, World Bank and Others about Ukraine Assistance</a>." The gist of the situation was that Ukraine was facing bankruptcy, unable to make its loan payments to the IMF and the World Bank, among others. In order to join the EU, meeting EU standards and regulations, and to avoid defaulting on its loans, the Ukraine would need, according to Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Avarov, a bailout of "20 billion euros." When the offer of financial support was not forthcoming from the EU, Russia offered Ukraine a 15-billion-euro bailout, and Yanukovych broke off negotiations with the EU in order to accept the Russian offer. <br /></span></span></p><h3 class="firstHeading mw-first-heading" id="firstHeading" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> The "Maidan Uprising" begins 21 November 2013<br /></span></span></h3><p class="firstHeading mw-first-heading" id="firstHeading" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">When the breakdown of Ukraine's negotiations with the EU was made public, protests began in Maidan Square, they turned bloody, people were killed and, within months, Yanucovich was overthrown. After a number of threats and attempts on his life, Yanucovich fled Ukraine 21 February 2014, and Petro Poroshenco, the billionaire pro-EU, anti-communist became the new President, winning a snap election 25 May 2014. Poroshenco signed the </span></span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine_Association_Agreement" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement</span></span></a><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> 27 June 2014. Without the requested financial bailout, and with the Russian seizure of Crimea, and escalation of the civil war in the Donbas region, the Ukranian economy went into sharp decline and in the presidential elections of 2019, Poroshenco was defeated by </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Voldymyr Zelensky. In 2021, Poroschenco fled Ukraine after being accused of "high treason" and financing terrorists for buying coal from separatist regions of Ukraine. Russia launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine 24 February 2022.</span></span></p><h3 class="firstHeading mw-first-heading" id="firstHeading" style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Zelensky's First years in office </span></span></span></b><br /></span></h3><p class="firstHeading mw-first-heading" id="firstHeading" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Zelensky
was elected in 2019 in opposition to Petro Poroshenko, the </span></span><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">pro-European, militarist, anti-communist </span></span>incumbent. Zelensky came to power as a peace maker, promising
to negotiate with pro-Russian separatists in the Donbas
region. According
to a Wilson Center online article:</span></span></span></p><p class="firstHeading mw-first-heading" id="firstHeading" style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"></span></span></p><blockquote><a href="https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/zelensky-servant-people-experience-major-setback-ukraine-local-elections" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span></a><a href="https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/zelensky-servant-people-experience-major-setback-ukraine-local-elections" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></a><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/zelensky-servant-people-experience-major-setback-ukraine-local-elections" target="_blank"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Zelensky’s </span></span></a><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><a class="md-dictionary-link md-dictionary-tt-off mw" data-term="mandate" data-type="MW" href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mandate">mandate</a>
allowed him to promote a peace settlement that would see Ukrainian
forces and Russian-backed insurgents withdraw from the so-called
“contact line” in eastern Ukraine. Zelensky’s opponents characterized
the move as a capitulation that would do nothing but legitimize Russian
aggression in the <a class="md-crosslink" href="https://www.britannica.com/place/Donbas">Donets Basin</a> and <a class="md-crosslink" href="https://www.britannica.com/place/Crimea">Crimea</a>, but he retained widespread support from a war-weary public.</span></span></span></blockquote><p> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Additionally, <span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Zelensky's anti-corruption agenda
progressed well over his first year in office but </span></span></span><br /></p><p></p><blockquote style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/zelensky-servant-people-experience-major-setback-ukraine-local-elections" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">[. . . .] by March 2020 everything changed. Zelensky appointed as his new chief of staff Andriy Yermak, a person rumored to </span></span></a><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/is-zelenskyy-preparing-for-a-thaw-in-russia-ukraine-ties/">have business connections</a> <a href="https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/zelensky-servant-people-experience-major-setback-ukraine-local-elections" target="_blank">to Russia. Zelensky </a><a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ze-end/">sacked</a>
his cabinet of ministers, and Denys Shmyhal, a former governor who had
ties to oligarch Rinat Akhmetov, became the new prime minister. The
Verkhovna Rada [Ukrainian parliament] also <a href="https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_a_turn_to_the_past_ukraines_troubling_government_reshuffle">voted to remove</a> prosecutor general Ruslan Ryaboshapka, a decision that <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-fires-prosecutor-general-alarming-us-european-countries/story?id=69436552">concerned</a> the West. In selecting his new cabinet, Zelensky appointed numerous figures who had ties to <a href="https://eurasianet.org/a-brief-history-of-corruption-in-ukraine-the-dawn-of-the-zelensky-era">former</a> Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/family-of-sanctioned-ukrainian-politician-and-putin-proxy-selling-refined-oil-to-u-s-/30822759.html">pro-Russian</a> Ukrainian politician Viktor Medvedchuk. Zelensky, it seemed, was surrounding himself with Ukraine’s <a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/zelenskyys-old-new-faces/">old faces</a>. </span></span></blockquote><p class="firstHeading mw-first-heading" id="firstHeading" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Why Invade when Zelensky was President? </span></span><br /></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Why did Russia launch a full-scale invasion in 2022 when Zelensky was President--a politician who, in contrast to Poroshenco, had come to power promising to negotiate with Russia to end the civil war in Eastern Ukraine and was surrounding himself with pro-Russian ministers? The hawkish theory is that Putin took Zelensky's willingness to negotiate as a sign of weakness. Additionally, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Security_Service" target="_blank">FSB</a> (the Russian secret service) paid careful attention to polling in Ukraine and calculated that not only was Zelensky's approval rating dropping but Ukrainians were fed up with the civil war that had been going on for more than eight years and would be ready to accept an invasion and Russian hegemony if it meant peace. </span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A countervailing theory is that Zelensky really wasn't in control of the country. There were too many disparate elements working to control Ukraine: Europhiles, nationalists, NATO, oligarchs, Neo-nazi militias, and especially the USA through the CIA and NGOs likeTechCamp and the NED (the public face of the CIA). After 2014, the operation was no longer covert. The USA was providing a massive build-up of weaponry, military technology and training to Ukraine. The military build-up only made the headlines in the USA as an aside in the impeachment hearings against Donald Trump. Presumably, with Joe Biden, an old-time cold warrior whose son was heavily invested in Ukraine, taking office, the Russians felt compelled to move sooner rather than later to re-establish their hegemony over Ukraine.<br /> </span></span><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What is a "CIA covert operation"?</span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In considering the question of the CIA involvement in the "Maidan uprising," it is useful to consider what a "covert CIA operation" is. How would we know one if we saw one? What should we be looking for as evidence? Yes, lots of people claim to know it was a CIA coup and share their opinions. Yes, from a distance, the <i>prima facia</i> evidence is that what happened looks like a CIA operation. But for the more skeptical among us, what empirical evidence is there? Okay, if it was a "covert" operation, we can't expect to see video of somebody with CIA printed on his flak jacket machine-gunning the Ukrainian parliament. And even if such a video existed, we would rightly assume it was Russian misinformation and propaganda. We need to keep in mind what is known about how the CIA goes about a covert operation in the overthrow of a regime. A recent article, entitled "<a href="https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-literally-unbelievable-story-of-the-original-fake-news-network?utm_source=pocket-newtab" target="_blank">The (Literally) Unbelievable Story of the Original Fake News Network</a>," offers extensive, detailed historical research on how "<a href="https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-literally-unbelievable-story-of-the-original-fake-news-network?utm_source=pocket-newtab" target="_blank">a cocky American actor and two radio DJs</a>" hired by the CIA were able to launch a revolution and oust the President of Guatemala. As the article points out:</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">[ . . .] the CIA didn’t just use media manipulation to turn a country upside down
and install the president that the U.S. wanted. The agency wrote
<a href="https://www.snowmedia.com/liberation/documents/setup/#doc3" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><i>a six-stage, step-by-step playbook</i></a> for exactly how to do it.</span></span>
</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The agency playbook is written in allusive bureaucratize, so here is my bowdlerized, boiled-down interpretation:</span></span></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Identify and confirm replacement leadership for the regime to be overthrown (e.g. the Shah in Iran, Pinochet in Chile, Castillo Armas in Guatemala)</span></span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Establish a narrative to justify the coup, spinning events to conform to the narrative.</span></span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Identify, manage, encourage or create a civil conflict.</span></span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Use resources on the ground to manipulate the media, creating panic and/or opposition within the general public.</span></span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Arrange mass demonstrations and riots as needed.</span></span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> Bolster, support, finance, train and motivate opposition forces, infiltrating if necessary, to determine that they will take action when needed.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="322" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WV9J6sxCs5k" width="482" youtube-src-id="WV9J6sxCs5k"></iframe></span></span></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /> </span></span><p></p></li></ol><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The CIA playbook in Ukraine </span></span><br /></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">1. Identify replacement leadership. In the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k" target="_blank">leaked telephone conversation between Victoria Nuland, assistant Secretary of State, and Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to the Ukraine, 4 February 2014</a> (17 days before Yanucovych was overthrown in the bloody coup), we can hear the Americans consulting on the make-up of the next Ukrainian government. We hear them considering that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitali_Klitschko" target="_blank">Vitali Klitschko</a> (leader of the party named after Petro Poroschenco--who became president after the coup) as a problem for the position of deputy Prime Minister. Nuland says that "Klitch should not go into the government." He became Mayor of Kyiv after the coup. Nuland and Pyatt agree that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk" target="_blank">Arseniy Yatsenyuk</a> will run the new government, with conditions that have been explained to him. Yatsenyuk became Prime Minister of Ukraine after the uprising but was forced to resign by President Poroschenco two years later. Pyatt comments that "the problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys." Oleh Tyahnybok was a leader of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-National_Party_of_Ukraine" title="Social-National Party of Ukraine">Social-National Party of Ukraine</a> which would later become <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)" target="_blank">Svoboda</a>. Interpretations of his speeches and politics label him a Neo-Nazi. Nuland's position, in the call, is that Yatsenyuk "needs Klitch and Tyahnybok [the extreme right-wing nationalists] on the outside." "He [Yatsenyuk, the new leader of Ukraine] needs to be talking to them four times a week." Why? Will the new government leader be giving instructions to right-wing nationalists outside of government, or will he be receiving orders from them? Step one of the CIA playbook seems confirmed: US representatives have decided what the leadership and power structure in Ukraine will be after the coup.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT8GJJ3riE8Yn-vx1D1HvY78qQHb6km7M_N5xOuXy67RyAHPtjMxC553kWgx-U81jpFaPHrU42G4o0mbSvRmI9I9ukNliEwLY_QtuiKakhQGBOt0xQa0PJP3OCsDf2SzL0MDof101pKBQLhSfkcAExgHRWsrA-yoDkoWAtFLgaAkYoGeu7igISh38gZg/s624/_72819491_6e204e28-41fc-466d-bf09-14cfc88706c6.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="351" data-original-width="624" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT8GJJ3riE8Yn-vx1D1HvY78qQHb6km7M_N5xOuXy67RyAHPtjMxC553kWgx-U81jpFaPHrU42G4o0mbSvRmI9I9ukNliEwLY_QtuiKakhQGBOt0xQa0PJP3OCsDf2SzL0MDof101pKBQLhSfkcAExgHRWsrA-yoDkoWAtFLgaAkYoGeu7igISh38gZg/w400-h225/_72819491_6e204e28-41fc-466d-bf09-14cfc88706c6.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></span></div><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland" target="_blank">Victoria Nuland</a> and </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_R._Pyatt" target="_blank">Geoffrey Pyatt</a> with </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitali_Klitschko" target="_blank">Vitali Klitschko</a> and </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk" target="_blank">Arseniy Yatsenyuk</a></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">2. Establish a narrative. As we have seen, the narrative was that Yanucovych was a corrupt Russian puppet leading his people away from the promised prosperity of EU membership. The right-wing, ultra-ethnic-nationalist party, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)" target="_blank">Svoboda</a> (All-Ukrainian Union "Freedom" Party) was given credibility and even managed to gain 10% of the vote in the parliamentary elections in 2012. (After 2014 Svoboda virtually disappeared from the political landscape.) As we have seen in the Nuland-Pyatt phone conversation, the plan was to keep Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of Svaboda, out of government but for him to play a role as the power behind the throne to be occupied by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk" target="_blank">Arseniy Yatsenyuk</a>. At the same time, the narrative would be spread that EU and NATO membership, at any cost, were the true desire of the unified Ukrainian people (ignoring the fact that about a third of the population was Russian-speaking and likely pro-Russian). Yanucovych's neutralist discourse would go largely unreported. We will never know if Yanucovych intended to go back to negotiations with the EU after accepting the Russian bailout. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych" target="_blank">On 24 January 2019, he was sentenced <i>in absentia</i> to thirteen years' imprisonment for high treason by a Ukrainian court.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-26">[25]</sup></a>--and remains in exile in Russia.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_liCBhi0qKJjt1KFb5creH0y3I_ReMPyJT9bxDrHveM7J8kEAN9YbP_SfRAGNucVgECeaGi1bMjb4c7s-xOcXUO18JNpaye3PFiw2boZvP9Hq33MjcW8woqGFmWvWib-WLoPUmVU8AJ4tJa6Q1VTXuAO1baIuTpdPrSNMvmAB8KmZzfQQanpCRAkGJA/s976/_72831422_g2drv3ev.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="549" data-original-width="976" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_liCBhi0qKJjt1KFb5creH0y3I_ReMPyJT9bxDrHveM7J8kEAN9YbP_SfRAGNucVgECeaGi1bMjb4c7s-xOcXUO18JNpaye3PFiw2boZvP9Hq33MjcW8woqGFmWvWib-WLoPUmVU8AJ4tJa6Q1VTXuAO1baIuTpdPrSNMvmAB8KmZzfQQanpCRAkGJA/w400-h225/_72831422_g2drv3ev.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></span></div><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k" target="_blank">Victoria Nuland</a> with </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleh_Tyahnybok" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Oleh Tyahnybok</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitali_Klitschko" target="_blank">Vitali Klitschko</a> and </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk" target="_blank">Arseniy Yatsenyuk</a></span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">3. Identify and manage a civil conflict. Ukraine was the bloodiest battleground between Nazis and Communist in World War II. Some Ukrainians saw the Nazis as their saviors from the Soviet Communists. Some Ukrainians, especially Jews (more Jews were killed in Ukraine during the Holocaust that anywhere else in Europe), viewed the Communists as their saviors from the Nazis. The underlying, historical conflict has never completely disappeared. As reported by the <i>New York Times</i>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pST_oOK-cdg" target="_blank">Ukraine is divided between its pro-EU west and pro-Russian east</a>. Ukraine remains home to diehard Communists and avowed Neo-Nazis. They may be marginal extremes in the population but they represent a conflict that is easy for the CIA to exploit covertly and the USA to exploit publicly.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDTFtBuy_97SZvWABHm9tHJ6qL4geHidkQ_D4xvGB9GfQAk57LbgF3SZM5AyrGXazDC-jAF68cHYqjnnRAfWmETpnmxIjvHWNgHb7fWQ9qZt-LaKR9P-HndiplCJ74hFfpjxcZSb6P3F-pVM145Dh4nZZse0eImJcDepYR91WUbfzsBRWi9X-tEqMs7w/s1856/Screen%20Shot%202022-06-27%20at%209.05.31%20AM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1002" data-original-width="1856" height="346" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDTFtBuy_97SZvWABHm9tHJ6qL4geHidkQ_D4xvGB9GfQAk57LbgF3SZM5AyrGXazDC-jAF68cHYqjnnRAfWmETpnmxIjvHWNgHb7fWQ9qZt-LaKR9P-HndiplCJ74hFfpjxcZSb6P3F-pVM145Dh4nZZse0eImJcDepYR91WUbfzsBRWi9X-tEqMs7w/w640-h346/Screen%20Shot%202022-06-27%20at%209.05.31%20AM.png" width="640" /></a></span></span></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The BBC, Vice and Insider have done a number of reports on Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. When interviewed, participants often repudiate the label "Neo-Nazis" and describe themselves as "nationalists." </span></span></p><p class="title style-scope ytd-video-primary-info-renderer" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY" target="_blank"><span><span style="font-size: medium;">Neo-Nazi threat in new Ukraine: NEWSNIGHT</span></span></a></span></span></p><p class="title style-scope ytd-video-primary-info-renderer" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEKQsnRGv7s" target="_blank"><span><span style="font-size: medium;">The far-right group threatening to overthrow Ukraine's government - Newsnight</span></span></a></span></p><p class="title style-scope ytd-video-primary-info-renderer" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMMXuKB0BoY" target="_blank"><span><span style="font-size: medium;">Out of Control: Ukraine's Rogue Militias</span></span></a></span></p><p class="post-headline" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/inside-ukrainian-nationalist-camp-where-kids-train-to-kill-russians" target="_blank"><span><span style="font-size: medium;">Inside a Ukrainian nationalist camp where kids are trained to kill Russian invaders</span></span></a></span></p><p></p><p class="title style-scope ytd-video-primary-info-renderer" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span> 4. Resources on the ground to manipulate the media. In <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9hOl8TuBUM&t=90s" target="_blank">a speech before the Ukrainian parliament</a> in November, 2013, Deputy <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Tsaryov" target="_blank">Oleg Tsarov</a> claimed to have</span><span> "proof of USA staging civil war in Ukraine." Tsarov was elected to the Ukrainian parliament, </span><span>the Verkhovna Rada<b>, </b>representing regions of Eastern Ukraine, on three separate occasions. </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Tsaryov" target="_blank"><span>He has been wanted by Ukrainian police since June 2014 for promoting separatism and violence.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-OT3614_5-0">[5]</sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-6">[6]</sup></span></a><span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-6"> </sup></span><span>As you can see/hear in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9hOl8TuBUM&t=90s" target="_blank">the Youtube video</a>, Tsarov claims that the US embassy in Kyiv was using "TechCamp" in the support and preparation of a civil war in Ukraine. As recorded, he goes on to say . . .</span></span></span></p><p class="title style-scope ytd-video-primary-info-renderer" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><blockquote><p class="title style-scope ytd-video-primary-info-renderer" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto">American instructors explained how social networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well as to activate protest potential to provoke violent unrest on the territory of Ukraine, radicalization of the population and triggering of infighting.</span></span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><a href="https://techcamp.america.gov/techcamps/techforum-ukraine/" target="_blank">TechCamp Ukraine</a> (and others) is organized by the US Department of State and publicly promoted as supplying American technical expertise to Ukrainians (and other Eastern Europeans). </span></span></span><br /></p><blockquote><p><input class="toctogglecheckbox" id="toctogglecheckbox" role="button" style="display: none;" type="checkbox" /></p></blockquote><div class="toctitle" dir="ltr" lang="en"><h2 id="mw-toc-heading"></h2><span class="toctogglespan"><label class="toctogglelabel"></label></span></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">5. Arrange mass demonstrations. The <span><span>irrefutable</span></span> evidence that the anti-government forces were well trained and tech savvy was the speed and efficiency with which the Maidan Square demonstrations were organized. The breakdown of negotiations with the EU was announced 21 November 2013. By all accounts, the protest demonstrations with thousands of people gathering in the Maidan Square began the very same day. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FijiV_ISw2A" target="_blank">The BBC and others reported and videoed the demonstrations.</a> (The man leading the crowd in the singing of the national anthem in this video is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitali_Klitschko" target="_blank">Vitali Klitschko</a>, the right-wing nationalist who Victoria Nuland said should not be in the government but would remain a power broker. In the conversation, February 4, Pyatt tells Nuland, "He [Klitschko] is the next phone call you want to set up.") Lots of average Ukrainians were there to protest against the government and its policies, to support their preferred political party (there are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Ukraine" target="_blank">349 political parties in Ukraine</a>), and to demand EU membership. Some were there to protest the protestors, but the uprising was clearly salted with right-wing militias (young men with faces covered who refused to identify themselves or their party or politics).</span></span> </p><p></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"></span></span></span><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> 6. Motivate opposition forces to take action. One hundred and thirty people died, directly and indirectly, in the Maidan Uprising, including 18 police officers. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib7EkJD08e4" target="_blank">BBC video includes footage of the shooting</a>, an interview with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Shevchenko_(politician)" target="_blank">Andriy Shevchenko</a>, one of the organizers of the protests who is today Ukraine's Ambassador to Canada, and an interview with one of the protestors who confesses to shooting at police. While there is no doubt that police shot and killed protestors, protestors also shot and killed police. Protest organizers claim that the shooters were Russians trying to stir up the civil war in the east, and Russians claim the shooting was backed by the CIA, for, more or less, the same reason.</span></span></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><b>Is Ihor Lutsenko the "smoking gun"? </b><br /></span></span></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Who is </span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihor_Lutsenko_(politician)" title="Ihor Lutsenko (politician)">Ihor Lutsenko</a></span></span>? <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The very first name on </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_during_the_Revolution_of_Dignity" target="_blank">List of people killed during the Revolution of Dignity</a> is </span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a class="new" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yuriy_Verbytskyi&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Yuriy Verbytskyi (page does not exist)">Yuriy Verbytskyi</a></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> and the explanation of his death is that he and his friend, Ihor Lutsenko, were kidnapped from a hospital, taken to the country side, questioned and tortured. Yuriy died, but Ihor survived. Ihor Lutsenko is, therefore, one of a small number of people who might give us some access to the most covert elements of the "Maidan Uprising." On Wikipedia he is described as a Maidan organizer, journalist and politician, who lost his seat in 2019, and is now "</span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">an adviser of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Kyiv" title="Mayor of Kyiv">Mayor of Kyiv</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitali_Klitschko" title="Vitali Klitschko">Vitali Klitschko</a>" (that is, Victoria Nuland's power broker who figured so prominently in videos of the demonstration).</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Continuing to search the name "Ihor Lutsenko," I came to this website: </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"<a href="https://reportingradicalism.org/en/dossiers/groups/c14-radical-right-wing-group-with-youth-camps-paramilitary-unit-and-history-of-violence" target="_blank">C14 - Radical right-wing group with youth camps, paramilitary unit and history of violence</a>"</span></span><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">which lists Ihor Lutsenko as a "related" individual who collaborates with C14. (C14 and the "Right Sector" are featured in multiple BBC videos.) The website in question is called "Reporting Radicalism" and is partnered with <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/" target="_blank">Freedom House</a> in Washington.</span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-image: none; background-position: 0% 0%; background: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I could find only one article in English with the details of Ihor's and Yuriy's kidnapping and torture: "</span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/abducted-euromaidan-supporter-dead-ukraine/25240225.html" target="_blank">Abducted And Left To Die: Euromaidan Supporter Found Dead In Forest</a>" in a blog published by Radio Free Europe. According to the article:</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">He [Ihor Lutsenko] told Ukraine's Hromadske TV: "This was definitely done in police
style. These people effectively interrogated us. They repeatedly asked
me, for instance, how Euromaidan was operated and who financed it."</span></span></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>"On the other hand, I don't think that [President Viktor] Yanukovych and
those on his side lack this information, they can clearly obtain it
from different sources."</span></span></span></p></blockquote><p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Who would have reason to kidnap Ihor from the hospital when he went to accompany his friend who had been injured in a fight in Maidan Square? Who would dress and act like police, know how to effectively interrogate prisoners, yet ask questions that the police and the government would already know the answers to? If not the Right Sector and not the government, who then? If there was any hint that his abductors were Russian, wouldn't Ihor, the right-wing, anti-communist be quick to say so? Who would be motivated to kidnap two protestors, who had left the fighting to nurse their wounds, beat them up for a day while pretending to be police then release them to go back to the fighting at Maidan the next day, more motivated than ever to revenge themselves on the government and the police? According to the autopsy report, Ihor's friend, Yuriy, died of hypothermia. His death may well have been unintended.</span></span><br /></p><h3 class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What Difference does it make?</span></span></h3><p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I've done a lot more work than usual preparing this post. If you have read this far, you have done a lot of work too. It shouldn't be this much work to get a clear picture of what happened eight years ago and brought us to the war and global turmoil we are facing today. Did the CIA imitate police, kidnap and torture Ihor Lutsenko and send him back to Maidan, motivated for bloodshed? Who knows? As I have researched the hypothesis, the greatest argument against the "Maidan Uprising" being a "covert CIA operation" is that there was so little effort to hide US intentions. The internet is littered with images of Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt at the Maidan demonstrations. <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2014/04/16/why-cia-director-brennan-visited-kiev-in-ukraine-the-covert-war-has-begun/?sh=231d22b410cb" target="_blank">Forbes reported that CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine in April, 2014.</a> Does anyone care if the CIA was carrying out operations a few months earlier in 2013?</span></span></p><p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2FpMzp8W76bJ6fWFYHpjJpP4AmCnWHoJP9wcLmpggcevBoh-L32keschJnJ2Zfi8my2hEaMgTy-vnXxlI3O4vRE-nndwhKlJQ1cDYoxbr9KkLSlwCSYC4rPEF18_JQhPbxvq1lYf1FI7bP-Ao13srAi-s3GVUfQqhtHnYO50saUOmOoQcuONq_2wSjw/s846/1213-world-Nuland2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="846" height="284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2FpMzp8W76bJ6fWFYHpjJpP4AmCnWHoJP9wcLmpggcevBoh-L32keschJnJ2Zfi8my2hEaMgTy-vnXxlI3O4vRE-nndwhKlJQ1cDYoxbr9KkLSlwCSYC4rPEF18_JQhPbxvq1lYf1FI7bP-Ao13srAi-s3GVUfQqhtHnYO50saUOmOoQcuONq_2wSjw/w400-h284/1213-world-Nuland2.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></span></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /> Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt at the Maidan demonstrations<br /></span></span><p></p><h3 class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Tail wagging the dog <br /></span></span></h3><p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The discouraging realization for me is that the tail can still so easily wag the dog: a few minor, marginal characters--people whose politics and morality we would immediately repudiate if given the chance to know who and what they are--could snowball the chaos and catastrophe of Ukraine into a global cataclysm. </span></span></p><h3 class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"Good against Evil": What more do we need to know?<br /></span></span></h3><p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; overflow-wrap: anywhere; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> In <i>Charlie Wilson's War</i>, the key to arming the </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">mujahideen</span></span>, was the approval of "useful idiot," <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Long" target="_blank">Congressman Clarence "Doc" Long, Chairman of the </a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Long." target="_blank" title="United States House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs">subcommittee on Foreign Operations</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Long." target="_blank"> of the </a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Long" target="_blank" title="United States House Committee on Appropriations">House Appropriations Committee</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Long" target="_blank">.</a> To convince him to sign off on the budget appropriation of weapons, Charlie Wilson, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Herring" target="_blank">Joanne King Herring</a> and the President <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Zia-ul-Haq" target="_blank">Zia-ul-Haq</a><b>, </b>took him to visit an Afghan refugee camp in the north of Pakistan. There, Congressman Long's messiah complex took over and he gave a speech promising the requested weapons because, in his words, the Afghan war with Russia was "a battle of good against evil."</span></span><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Today we know that US policy is to promote a lengthy war in Ukraine, to weaken Russia in a proxy war of attrition . . . "to fight to the last Ukrainian"--a rehearsal for the proxy war to come in Taiwan. N</span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">o matter how obvious the chaos of competing interests, the Machiavellic games being played, the message remains the same: "it's a battle of good against evil." Our leaders and the dominant voices in our media have assured us that we are on the side of good. What more do we need to know?</span></span><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Addendum</span></span></h3><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">From the <i>New York Times</i> 25 June 2022:</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span face="nyt-imperial, georgia, "times new roman", times, serif" style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(54, 54, 54); color: #363636; font-size: 20px;"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/commandos-russia-ukraine.html?searchResultPosition=4" target="_blank"><blockquote>Representative Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat on the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, said in an interview that the relationships Ukrainian commandos developed with American and other counterparts over the past several years had proved invaluable in the fight against Russia.</blockquote></a></span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span face="nyt-imperial, georgia, "times new roman", times, serif" style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(54, 54, 54); color: #363636; font-size: 20px;"><blockquote><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/commandos-russia-ukraine.html?searchResultPosition=4" target="_blank">While the U.S. government does not acknowledge that the C.I.A. is operating in Ukraine or any other country, the presence of the officers is well understood by Russia and other intelligence services around the world.</a></blockquote></span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span face="nyt-imperial, georgia, "times new roman", times, serif" style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(54, 54, 54); color: #363636; font-size: 20px;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span face="nyt-imperial, georgia, "times new roman", times, serif" style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(54, 54, 54); color: #363636; font-size: 20px;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span face="nyt-imperial, georgia, "times new roman", times, serif" style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(54, 54, 54); color: #363636; font-size: 20px;"><br /></span></span></span></div>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-14610963053954129662022-05-17T06:47:00.026-07:002022-05-23T06:01:06.778-07:00Constructing English Quebec Ethnicity<h3> <br />Constructing English Quebec Ethnicity: Colleen Curran's <i>Something Drastic </i>and Josée Legault's <i>L'invention d'une minorité : Les Anglo-Québécois</i></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>(first published in 1998)</p><p style="text-align: left;"><br />In a 1997 <i>La Presse</i> [1] editorial on the much discussed situation of the "les Anglais" in Quebec, [2] Agnés Gruda describes Josée Legault's title for her1991 study of the dominant discourse of the English Quebec community, <i>L'invention d'une minorité : Les Anglos-Québécois</i>, as "<i>un nom évocateur"(B2). [3] </i>Gruda summarizes Legault's thesis as follows<i>: "Selon l'auteure, il n'existe pas vraiment au Québec de communauté anglo-québécois fondée sur une identité propre et différente du reste du Canada. Cette 'minorité' a été inventéede toutes pièces à des fins stratégiques</i>" (B2). [4] Certainly, the connotative baggage of skepticism and suspicion of the French word "invention" seems intended, since Legault's central theme is that the dominant Anglo-Québécois liberal humanist discourse of individual rights is a mask intended to cover collective interests, reactionary, irresponsible, wait-and-see attitudes of superiority and nostalgic, elitist desires for domination. [5] However, Werner Sollors's reflections on the popularity of the word "invention" in his introduction to <i>The Invention of Ethnicity</i> seem to undercut Legault's rhetorical outrage at the rift between the "true" nature and objectives of the English-speaking communities of Quebec and the"false" discourse emanating from the leaders, politicians, journalists, and writers of those communities:</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>... that "invention" has become a rather popular category in intellectual discourse seems, if anything, an understatement. The term "invention" is, however, not just part of a fad; and we would not be better off without this buzzword, which, after all, offers an adequate description of a profound change in modes of perception. The interpretation of previously "essentialist" categories (childhood, generations, romantic love, mental health, gender, region, history, biography and so on) as "inventions" has resulted in the recognition of the general cultural constructedness of the modern world. (x)</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbDvKEaib7jpVo2lw6gRSX7P3CCNX6nvo46-AuKPN6t5JRJ3sFroWzg1_wmNKtJq9OBrX9V5ITwIQwX-QvaW9q1i2Xyzo3ftEqch6eZhgWJmkrscwCLxsOliELbgjyvjQ13oaYTm4x6vbwFWTBwfnxArHtqEZh0xxphMPnqusQ1FfuQB3UMg5eJZoT9w/s350/680507C49AE9EBB6F6A6D783AC04C760BCC03A5F.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="227" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbDvKEaib7jpVo2lw6gRSX7P3CCNX6nvo46-AuKPN6t5JRJ3sFroWzg1_wmNKtJq9OBrX9V5ITwIQwX-QvaW9q1i2Xyzo3ftEqch6eZhgWJmkrscwCLxsOliELbgjyvjQ13oaYTm4x6vbwFWTBwfnxArHtqEZh0xxphMPnqusQ1FfuQB3UMg5eJZoT9w/s320/680507C49AE9EBB6F6A6D783AC04C760BCC03A5F.jpg" width="208" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: left;"><br />Sollors's thesis that ethnicity "is not a thing but a process" and that it "is not so much an ancient and deep-seated force surviving from the historical past, but rather the modern and modernizing feature of a contrastive strategy..." (xiv) not only puts into question but seemingly erases essentialist distinctions between a real or "<i>vrai</i>" community and the communality constructed or "<i>inventée...à des fins stratégiques</i>."</p><p style="text-align: left;"><br />Throughout the body of <i>L'invention d'une minorité</i>, Legault juggles constructionist and essentialist visions of English Quebec pointing to the constructed, invented, created nature of the community in opposition to its essential, historic, "true" character and roots in order to display the apparent disingenuousness and hypocrisy of the public discourse of Quebec Anglophones and to explain what she sees as English intransigence. Legault argues clearly and in extensive detail that the newfound solidarity and cohesion of the English communities of Quebec came about largely in reaction to twenty years of government legislation designed to limit the use of English in Quebec [6]: "<i>Une nouvelle identité collective a commencé à se construire, beaucoup en réaction et en opposition certes à l'affirmation nationale des francophones et aux gestes faits en son nomme pars le gouvernement québécois</i>"(57). [7]</p><p style="text-align: left;"><br />The shrinking of the English population in the face of growing Québécois nationalism brought to the fore a number of organizations and prominent individuals as spokespersons for the dwindling English minority. These organizations and individuals, the subjects of Legault's study, themselves confirm that the English-speaking communities of Quebec have coalesced and, in many cases, drawn themselves into a defensive posture explicitly in reaction to the political, cultural and economic realities of post-1976 Quebec. [8] For example, Alliance Quebec, an English-rights lobby group, was formed in 1982, shortly after the first referendum. [9] The English of Quebec may have traditionally thought of themselves as simply English Canadians who happen to live in Quebec, or even more firmly as members of a particular region or municipality of Quebec, or as constituents of other ethnic communities where English has become the lingua franca. Whatever the feelings of the moment of individual English-speaking Quebecers, they are and have for many years now been going through a process, both internal and external, of being labeled and defined as a community. Legault's thesis that "<i>les Anglo-Québécois</i>" have and are undergoing the process of constructing and being constructed as a community is corroborated by masses of daily and documentary evidence. [10]</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEJa4ShG10r3piNTXWFTjJ7EI6ex9E_5Lfr4d6zw0AggxAQFmo83DMRcpjAgWixDC_frwOZB_BL0yHaZtcShktMXimgP1FjcKXaOJnxvbOx4Ay_80SfomI09OJj_Ltlit5GDghVUwxAWHNgYmpVLDunA2falm0syQrg6AJYs7u14Y48IgGaw8vpmSTXQ/s499/41l1xSnteqL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="333" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEJa4ShG10r3piNTXWFTjJ7EI6ex9E_5Lfr4d6zw0AggxAQFmo83DMRcpjAgWixDC_frwOZB_BL0yHaZtcShktMXimgP1FjcKXaOJnxvbOx4Ay_80SfomI09OJj_Ltlit5GDghVUwxAWHNgYmpVLDunA2falm0syQrg6AJYs7u14Y48IgGaw8vpmSTXQ/s320/41l1xSnteqL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="214" /></a></div><p style="text-align: left;"><br />However, Legault also adopts a traditional, essentialist line of argument identifying the Anglo-Québécois as "<i>descendants de Britanniques</i>" (descendants of the British) and therefore ethnically connected with "<i>les conquérants</i>" (the conquerors): "<i>Pourquoi remonter au passé de 'conquérants' des Britanniques du Québec dans le cadre d'un ouvrage portant sur les années 1974 à 1991? Parce que ce retour en arrière est essentiel à l'analyse et à la compréhension du discours "dominant" anglo-québécois des vingt dernières année</i>s" (18). [11] Legault completes her description of the Anglo-Québécois community with this encyclopedia of features: "<i>La langue anglaise, la domination économique des anglophones, de même que leur culture politique propre, qu'ils considéraient supérieure à celle des francophone, étaient au coeur même de leur identité collective</i>" (58). [12]<br /> </p><p style="text-align: left;">Against this kind of closure, Sollors's notion of"invention," once again, offers a means of re-opening and reconnecting a dialogue. He argues: </p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>The forces of modern life embodied by such terms as "ethnicity,""nationalism," or "race" can indeed by [sic] meaningfully discussed as "inventions." Of course, this usage is meant not to evoke a conspiratorial interpretation of a manipulative inventor who single-handedly makes ethnics out of unsuspecting subjects, but to suggest widely shared, though intensely debated, collective fictions that are continually reinvented. (xi) </blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">From this perspective Legault's <i>L'invention d'une minorité</i> is itself an attempt to invent (or perhaps reinvent) Anglo-Québécois ethnicity and as such joins a number of such publications including Sheila McLeod Arnoploulos and Dominique Clift's <i>The English Fact in Quebec</i> (1980), Gary Caldwell and Eric Waddell's <i>The English of Quebec: From Majority to Minority Status</i> (1982), Ronald Rudin's <i>The Forgotten Quebecers: A History of English Speaking Quebec, 1759-1980</i> (1985), Reed Scowen's <i>A Different Vision: The English in Quebec in the 1990's</i> (1991), William Johnson's <i>Anglophobia: Made in Québec</i> (1991), Mordecai Richler's <i>O Canada/O Quebec</i> (1990) and so on. To this list of "inventions" we might add those fictions which are explicit fictions by and about English Quebecers, including such Canadian classics as Hugh McLennan's <i>Two Solitudes</i>, Mordecai Richler's <i>The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz</i>, and Leonard Cohen's <i>Beautiful Losers</i> (to name but a few). [13]</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDq-d5MnMpQN7GZTR_hfAOFTfhn0HcT4rhz5h2xObJPWiiQo5xu8ROsh2rVK4MTWD03V9ZXwqzKOg4uuFDeuh2B2G3HfPFLmdYiwsLxpWSML4b5V2ABZ_UiWRq6t6g46bOIuwxW5xptCTc5cX9bYSYkEdSgjmSMA4tWFWnMYJMkGgsGCfZ_w6_gO-UmQ/s475/1.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="475" data-original-width="308" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDq-d5MnMpQN7GZTR_hfAOFTfhn0HcT4rhz5h2xObJPWiiQo5xu8ROsh2rVK4MTWD03V9ZXwqzKOg4uuFDeuh2B2G3HfPFLmdYiwsLxpWSML4b5V2ABZ_UiWRq6t6g46bOIuwxW5xptCTc5cX9bYSYkEdSgjmSMA4tWFWnMYJMkGgsGCfZ_w6_gO-UmQ/s320/1.jpg" width="207" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /><i>Something Drastic </i>(1995), a first novel by playwright Colleen Curran, offers a timely contribution to the discourse, and the discourse about the discourse, of the English Quebec community. Curran is part of a new generation of English Quebec writers—which would include novelists such as Linda Leith, Gail Scott, Robert Majzels and Kenneth Radu, as well as playwrights David Fennario, Vittorio Rossi, and Marianne Ackerman—who have responded with equanimity to the growth of Québécois nationalism and the minoritization of English in Quebec. For example, in her introduction to the anthology of short stories, <i>Telling Differences: New Fiction in English from Quebec</i>, Linda Leith comments:</p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><blockquote>The writers who stayed and who live here now have chosen to be here and they accept, with varying degrees of alacrity, the predominantly French face of Quebec. Some of the older writers may still be shaking their heads at what they see as decline, but those who have been emerging more recently are circumspect. Anxious as some anglos were on the night of November 15, 1976 when the Parti Québécois won the provincial election (but has enough been said about how pleased others were?), and displeased as some of them remain with aspects of the French language law, the new writers view this as a society that has by and large been changing for the better. (4)</blockquote><p><br />Leith's allusion to a generational split was reaffirmed in a more recent feature article in the Montreal <i>Gazette</i> by Joel Yanofsky entitled "The Silence of the Lamb Lobby." [14] The article was provoked by "veteran Montreal writer William Weintraub" [15] who "...wondered aloud in <i>The Gazette</i> last month why young anglo writers here—and by young the 71-year-old Weintraub later told me he meant anyone under 60—aren't writing about 'the social and political upheaval...the cataclysm' affecting their own community" (i4). In the article, Curran was identified, in fact featured, as one of these "young" (Curran is 43) writers. However, it was in a 1993 interview with <i>The Gazette</i> that Curran most clearly displayed her "degree of alacrity." The interview, which bore the title "Successful Montreal Playwright Colleen Curran Finds Home Town Tough Nut to Crack," focused on the relative lack of production that her plays had received in Montreal, and in particular the fact that Centaur Theatre, Quebec's main English-language theater, had never produced one of her plays, though she had been the theater's playwright in residence for a year. Curran's response was that "It could be that as an English Quebecer, as a minority, I'm expected to write something political or angry." But as Curran explained, "that's not my outlook. When I write really seriously, the plays are so turgid and they're so depressing. I just can't stand it. I just want to have a good time and tell a good story" (B4). </p><p>Curran's novel is written in the same tone and with the same acceptance of the minority status of Quebec English that she expressed in the interview. <i>Something Drastic</i> is a series of letters written by the heroine/narrator, Lenore, to her estranged boyfriend, in which she tries to account for his sudden, unannounced departure for Florida, tries, unrequited, to woo him home, and in the process tells him the story of her daily life in Montreal from January 6 (presumably 1990), the day he left, to December 30 of the same year, the day she is able to say "you're out of my life, I'm over you" (210). Through the process of a year's experiences as a woman alone, which included making a best friend of her tenant, Concordia University professor of Canadian and women's literature, Heidi Mavourneen (Irish for darling) Flynne; being drawn into a militant feminist group under police investigation for terrorist activities; attending a therapy session for "Women Who Love too Much," and winning a role in a musical at Centaur Theatre, Lenore comes to realize what a low-life, reprehensible cad her boyfriend is and to discover herself. </p><p>In her letters, Lenore makes several references to Alice Walker's novel, <i>The Color Purple</i>, and to Steven Spielberg's adaptation and film. In fact, <i>Something Drastic</i> offers a pastiche of the form and structure of Walker's novel. Just as Walker's <i>Color Purple</i> is an epistolary diary/novel of a woman's growth and individuation through adversity told in what becomes a bible of Afro-American culture written largely in ebonics, Curran gives us, in a similar form though a minor key, the testament of one year in the life of an Anglo-Québécoise as she rises from the bottom of one of life's barrels into a blossoming awareness of herself and her environment, written largely in Quebec English. [16]</p><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">The theme of abandonment seems distinctly Québécois in <i>Something Drastic</i> since the villain of the plot is an Anglo version of a "vendu" [17]: the term frequently used to refer to Québécois who sold their property and left the province prior to the first referendum. Moreover, the average Anglo-Québécois is very likely to have experienced the departure of friends and loved ones in recent decades. In her first letter, Lenore compiles a list of possible reasons her boyfriend, John Ferguson, (like the former "number 22 of <i>les Canadiens</i>") (30) has suddenly left Montreal for Florida. Possible reason number two was "You won't speak French." </p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>But you will not be able to escape Possible Reason 2: Speaking French, because where do you think everybody from Quebec goes in the winter? There will be people speaking French all over the place and if you're in the Tourist Industry you will have to be nice to them, which you never were here. I hope you wind up working in Miami or Hollywood Beach after what you did to me. I hope you have to work in a store with customers who'll only speak French. And I hope they all find out you're nothing but a big Anglo separatist from Quebec. (13)</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br />In contrast to Legault's image of the megalomaniac Anglo, Lenore is in a distinctly subaltern position in relation to Franco-Québécois culture and society. She tries to date Francophone police constable Benoit Archambault, makes friends with "separatist" neighbour, Reine Ducharme, by babysitting her dogs (Brioche [18] and Montcalm [19]), and works at a cabaret-style restaurant called Festin du Bois, [20]which features meat service by l<i>es coureurs du bois</i> [21] and entertainment by <i>les filles du roi.</i> [22] Her big break comes when one of the singing waitresses defects to the Maison Hauntée [23] and she is invited to audition to become one of <i>les filles du roi</i>. When she auditions, Gaetan the restaurant manager tells her her voice is good but "my song was <i>trop donner les bleus</i>." [24] She prepares a bilingual version of her girl-guide songs in order to be more Festin-ish which "meant something that celebrates nature or how much fun it is to be French Canadian"—and she gets the job (51).</p><p style="text-align: left;">The style of the novel is unabashedly kitsch. Lenore is a ceaseless collector of the tawdry and arcane,which of course overtakes the structure of the novel as she sends her boyfriend macabre headlines clipped from the Montreal <i>Gazette</i> with each letter, describes the tacky Christmas napkins and cards she has purchased, and reveals her love for Doris Day movies, souvenir plates, and Expo 67 memorabilia. While Heidi tries to educate Lenore to a taste for Canadian and Feminist Literature, their friendship causes more of an educational exchange. Heidi eventually hires Lenore to give a lecture on Doris Day at Concordia and arranges for Lenore's home to be declared a museum. As one Tour Book describes it:<br /> </p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>Museé d'art foklorique à Lenore/Lenore's Folk Art World: ...A kitschy , cluttered collection of taxi-dermied animals...gnomes and assorted creations à la lawn ornaments,...what may be the most extensive private collection of Expo 67 memorabilia in the world; Grottoes of the Stars;... Not what you'd expect in this English bastion in the midst of New France. It's what the Québécois would deem "<i>trés kétaine</i>," [25] you'll deem it trés fun. (134)</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">Lenore's museum serves as a mise-en-abyme for the novel as a whole. In fact, its "thrown together" style, with its lists, and headlines, asyndetic references to fragments and details of news and folk/popular culture, notes, agendas and schedules, together with Lenore's open, magpie innocence make the novel an effective vehicle for documenting the multitude of influences which form this Anglo-Québécois world. The novel creates a veritable vortex gathering in Steven King, the Oprah Winfrey Show, soap operas and sitcoms, country and western music, can lit classics, fads and fashions, <i>People</i> magazine and <i>Macleans</i>, the McGarrigle Sisters, the Gulf War, Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, Brian Mulroney, Gille Vigneault and Robert Charlebois, and the fictional trial (echoing the O.J. Simpson case) of mass murderer Jean-Luc Clossé in which, to the incredulity and outrage of the public, he is acquitted by a jury which includes Lenore's neighbour, Reine Ducharme. In this process, the novel demonstrates how Anglo-Québécois culture is formed, not through isolation and insulation but by being the site where a multitude of cultures—pop, American, Canadian, Québécois, feminist, academic and Irish—overlap. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Literary discourse in general and the form and style of <i>Something Drastic</i> in particular have important roles to play in the display of ethnic culture as the site of <i>metissage</i> and boundary crossings. Though Legault's analysis in <i>L'invention d'une minorité </i>is largely of political discourse, in a 1995 commentary in <i>Le Devoir</i> [26] Legault acknowledges the possibility for what she qualifies as an "anglo-montréalaise" culture: </p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>...<i>de nombreux anglophones demeurent prisonniers de leur refus d'une recherche imaginative et créatrice de leur identité et de leur appartenance à cette terre québécoise. Ils se replient sur leur solitude et leur crainte face a "l'autre" francophone. D'autant plus lorsque cet "autre" est nationaliste or souverainiste... Heureusement, il existe à Montréal un nombre croissant d'anglophones qui ne craignent pas l'aventure que représente cette recherche. Que l'on songe aux companies de théâtre—Centaur, Bulldog Productions, Black Theatre Workshop et Theatre 1774—ou aux nombreux auteurs, poètes et compositeurs, la volonté de communiquer et de créer une culture anglomontréalaise distincte est indéniable.</i> (A6) [27]</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br />Legault's choice of the regionalizing expression "anglo-montréalaise" over the broader notion of "anglo-québécoise" signals the grudging quality of her ostensibly generous vision. The expression Anglo-Québécois would doubtlessly be repudiated by many English-speaking Quebecers (not to mention Canadians) on the grounds that it inscribes acquiescence to Québécois nationalism. Québécois attachments to notions of cultural purity, signalled by such common expressions as <i>Québécois de souche </i>and <i>Québécois pure laine</i> [28] are also obstructions to an Anglo culture being recognized as Québécois. However, in his book <i>Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada</i>, Neil Bissoondath who lives in Quebec and writes in English and who is described by Linda Hutcheon as "a self-proclaimed assimilated Canadian" (29), suggests a clear preference for Québécois "centeredness." Bissoondath describes "English Canada..." as "adrift with no sense of its centre" whereas "Quebec [has] redefined its own centre, strengthened it, sought to make it unassailable" (196). </p><p style="text-align: left;">The downside of an "unassailable centre" became apparent on the night of the 1995 referendum when then Premier Jacques Parizeau blamed the failure of the independence resolution on "<i>l'argent et des votes ethniques.</i>" [29] And Bissoondath's attempts to attach himself to that center have proven problematic. In June of 1996, some eight months after the referendum, the theme of <i>Bouillon de culture</i>, the French television programme which presents round-table discussions of books and culture, was Quebec. When, near the end of the broadcast, host Bernard Pivot asked the panel, "<i>Mais enfin, pouvez-vous me dire ce qu'est un Québécois?</i>" Bissoondath took the initiative of responding: "<i>Un Québécois, c'est quelqu'un comme moi</i>." [30] At a conference, in the spring of 97, on English literature and culture in Quebec, distinguished Québécois literary scholar Gillles Marcotte delivered a paper entitled "<i>Neil Bissoondath disait...</i>" (alluding to this segment of <i>Bouillon de culture</i>). In his presentation, Professor Marcotte was categorical that "<i>Citoyen québécois, Neil Bissoondath n'est pas un écrivain québécois</i>" on the basis that "<i>Il n'existe évidemment pas telle chose qu'une littérature anglo-québécois...</i>" (2). [31] </p><p style="text-align: left;">In <i>L'invention d'une minorité</i>, Legault clearly attaches her argument to these categorical sentiments when, for example, she argues that "<i>s'il est indéniable qu'un certain nombre d'anglophones résidaient bel et bien au Québec, on ne pouvait toutefois parler de l'existence d'une 'communité' anglo <u>québécois</u></i>"( 58) [32] laying emphasis (through her italics) on the word "québécois." As Legault makes plain, the collective identity that <i>les anglais</i> are beginning to construct is, in her understanding, "'<i>québécois</i>,<i>' dans le sens territorial et non cultural du terme</i>" (58). [33] Ironically, Legault's claims sound like an apologia for the largely Anglo, Quebec "partitionist" movement. [34] They also require that we overlook what Eric Waddell describes as the significant contribution of the Irish, Scottish and Anglo-Saxon traditions "to defining the personality of the province" (167).</p><p style="text-align: left;"><br />The impasse which these binary oppositions set up seems all the more insoluble in the face of the recent tendency to identify a "true Québécois" as a nationalist and sovereigntist, and an Anglo-Québécois as, almost by definition, an opponent of independence. Certainly, Curran's naive heroine in <i>Something Drastic</i> unquestioningly buys into this new version of the two-solitudes myth, as she presumes separation to be anathema. However, when she meets her neighbour Reine Ducharme, Lenore observes:</p><blockquote><blockquote>Madame Ducharme likes me because I'm bilingual and we always speak French....She's really one for justice. And for Separation! (But we always knew that.) Luckily the subject of Quebec never came up. Still, I had such a nice time with her it didn't matter she was a Separatist. (107, 108)<br /></blockquote></blockquote><p><i>Something Drastic</i> signals the writer discovering or attempting to discover herself as an Anglo-Québécoise for the first time. In fact, nothing in Curran's twelve published plays between 1981 and 1995 gives any suggestion that she is and has all her life been an English Quebecer. The typical setting of a Curran play is small-town Ontario, though she has set one-act plays in Acapulco and cottage country in New England. Curran has been described as a "tradition" at the Blyth Festival in Blyth, Ontario, where most of her plays have been produced. </p><p>Lenore's self-proclaimed orphan-hood (she is a fully independent adult but her parents have died before the novel opens), together with her recent abandonment, make her a distinctly disconnected, tabula-rasa character, and therefore all the more prepared as an empty vessel to be filled with the distinctly Anglo-Québécois mix of cultures she experiences. Lenore's friend, Heidi Mavornneen Flynn, for example, is passionate about her Irish ethnic roots. Heidi practices Ceili dancing, listens to Chieftain's music, talks of her fighting Irish father and brothers, and celebrates St. Patrick's Day with devotion. Lenore absorbs this Irish essence like an Anglo-Québécois cultural sponge. Curran's upholding of Irish ethnicity, which has also been undertaken by playwrights David Fennario and Marianne Ackerman, becomes all the more striking when juxtaposed to Legault's attempt to reinforce the ethnic line from the conquerors to the modern-day English population of Quebec. </p><p>Using a 1976 survey carried out by the now-defunct <i>Montreal Star</i>, Legault persists in attempting to carry forward a mythical connection between "<i>les conquérants</i>," "<i>les britannique de souche</i>," the modern Anglo-Québécois minority and resistance to the French language:</p><blockquote><i>Selon un sondage effectué par le <u>Montreal Star</u> en 1976, seulement 20% des Québécois anglophones travaillait uniquement en français, et la majorité de ces 20% était d'ailleurs d'origines autres que britannique. En fait, la quasi-totalité des travailleurs de souche britannique travaillait encore dans leur langue</i>. (45) [35]<br /></blockquote><p>Although one may detect incredulity in Legault's discourse here, a brief perusal of the relevant statistics will confirm that her tone is, at best, feigned. In the first place, it is universally acknowledged that bilingualism among Anglophones has increased dramatically since 1976 and has outstripped bilingualism among Francophones. There are generally considered to be 800 or 900 thousand Anglophones in Quebec. The numbers are "soft" because they are made up of native speakers of English and native speakers of other languages who live and work in English. According to the 1991 census 599,145 residents of Quebec identified themselves as native speakers of English. However, in the same census year, only 159,260 Quebecers identified themselves as English in terms of ethnic origin. Welsh is not given its own category as a language or an ethnic origin in the Canadian census statistics for Quebec. Including the Scottish (a questionable move according to my Scottish friends) in Legault's category of "<i>britannique de souche</i>" we arrive with a population figure of just over 200,000. In other words Legault's "<i>britannique de souche</i>" make up, at most, about a quarter of the Anglo-Québécois community. Are we to be amazed that in 1976 the majority of Anglophones in Quebec used some English in their work? Our incredulity (and hers) should be erased when we take into account Legault's own statistic that 75% of Quebec Anglos are in the Montreal region together with her claim that "<i>Il faut vivre sur une autre planète pour croire que Montréal, par exemple, sera un jour unilingue français</i>e" [36] (48).</p><p><br />Statistically, Quebecers who claim English as an ethnic origin are significantly outnumbered by Italians (by almost 10%). 82,790 Quebecers identified themselves as being of Irish origin in the 91 census. It is these Irish cultural roots which Curran's novel tends to emphasize. To underline the point, Lenore's arch-enemy in the novel is her Anglo neighbor Jemima Farnham whom she describes as "formerly of England, a Monarchist and an Anglo Supremacist" (157).</p><p><br />What the novel outlines to us is that being an Anglo-Québécoise means, for example, the polyphonous experience of travelling by "<i>Métro</i>" (subway) going to the "<i>Complex Sportif</i>" (sports centre) at the Université de Montréal with a celtophile, Anglo professor of Canadian literature to attend a Bonnie Raitt concert and stopping to leave flowers at the memorial for the Polytechnique massacre. [37] It means arranging a date with a Francophone police officer to see either <i>Les Expos</i> or <i>Les Canadiens</i> and thinking "He'll probably take me to Ben's for Smoked Meat. (That's probably what he thinks all the Anglos go for)" (141). Although bilingualism may not have much purchase in French Quebec these days, in the novel it remains the center of an Anglo utopic ideal. Lenore waxes sentimentally:<br /></p><p></p><blockquote>The other day that musical, <i>Les Misérables</i>, opened here in French and in English. The same cast is doing the show, one time it's all in French, another time it's in English. That is so amazing,it's so bilingual and so hopeful or something. For our city. It's the first time its been done like that, it's all Montreal people in it. And it's professional like the ones in Toronto and New York.<br /></blockquote>And as if to confirm that her bilingualism, whose icon is a French classic, Anglosized, Americanized and presented in Quebec in French and English, is not an anglocentric strategy, Lenore continues: <br /><blockquote>That makes me think of the Gulf Desert Storm War, because the bad guys speak English. I've seen them on the news. In the other wars, it was always people who didn't speak our language, but this time they do (32).</blockquote>Being Anglo-Québécois means celebrating St. Patrick's Day at a restaurant called Festin du Bois where you, the Anglo, have introduced the clientele to a new house wine from a Quebec vineyard, and being able to observe that "the fact that it's Québécois has the <i>pure-laines</i> pretty <i>heureux</i>" (69). Being Anglo-Québécois means observing on New Year's Eve that "if we were politically correct anglophone Quebec Canadians we'd watch ByeBye, that French comedy show looking back at the year, and we'd pretend we understood all the in-jokes" (25). As the novel so copiously displays, being Anglo-Québécois also means speaking a version of English which accommodates such signifiers as "<i>joual</i>," [38] "<i>dépanneu</i>r," [39]<i> réveillon</i>," [40] "<i>pure laine</i>," "<i>kétaine</i>," f<i>lyé</i>" [41] and "<i>boite a chanson</i>" [42] as well as a host of standard French expressions and institutional and commercial names.<p></p><p>Is there a political allegory to detect in the conclusion of the novel? Perhaps even asking the question is heavy-handed given the author's claims to being apolitical. But Reine Ducharme was captured trying to poison the other jurors with whom she had hastily acquitted Jean-Luc Clossé. There seems to be something here about the Franco-Québécois making rash and hasty decisions which they later regret. Heidi resists marrying into an American family. There seems to be some subtext here, despite Lenore's appetite for American pop culture, about resisting American domination. These are, after all, also English Canadian narratives. Feeble political correctness, tokenism and speaking franglais will not move the political agenda in Quebec. But, through the process of the novel, Lenore has become ever more clearly and fully what she was in the beginning: an Anglo-Québécoise. Her case invites us to begin seeing the hyphen between anglo and québécois, and all such hyphens, not as separations but as possibilities, as "<i>trait d'union</i>," a pulling together. It is a sentimental notion, not a solution, but Legault also concludes her study by giving stern counsel on the need for compromise. Perhaps what the Anglo-Québécois case best demonstrates is what philosopher Charles Taylor, himself an English Quebecer who has upheld Quebec's right to defend its collective cultural interests, [43] calls the need for "'deep diversity,' in which a plurality of ways of belonging would also be acknowledged and accepted" (183). In fact, there are no immediate, viable options other than the ongoing need for invention.</p><p><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Works Cited</h3><p>Bauch, Hubert. "Alliance Meeting Turns into Love In." <i>The Gazette</i> [Montreal] 26 May 1995: A4.</p><p><br />Bissoondath, Neil. <i>Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada</i>. Toronto: Penguin, 1994.</p><p><br /><i>Bouillon de Culture</i>. Réal. Michel Hermart. Anim. Bernard Pivot. Radio-Québec. le 2 juin 1996. France 2. le 7 juin 1996.</p><p><br />Curran, Colleen. <i>Something Drastic</i>. Fredericton, NB: Goose Lane, 1995.</p><p><br />Davidson, Arnold E. "Canada in Fiction." <i>The Columbia History of the American Novel</i>. Ed. Emory Elliot. New York: Columbia UP, 1991. 558-85.</p><p><br />Donnelly, Pat. "Successful Montreal Playwright Colleen Curran Finds Home Town Tough Nut to Crack." <i>The Gazette</i> [Montreal] 17 Feb. 1993: B4.</p><p><br />Daymond, Douglas and Monkman, Leslie. "Introduction." <i>Stories of Quebec</i>. Ed. Douglas Daymond and Leslie Monkman. Ottawa: Oberon, 1980. 5-10.</p><p><br />Gruda, Agnès. "La confusion minoritaire." <i>La Presse </i>[Montréal] le 12 avril 1997: B2.</p><p><br />Harris, Cole R. "Regionalism and the Canadian Archipelago." <i>Heartland and Hinterland: A Geography of Canada</i>. Ed. L.D. McCann. 2nd ed. Scarborough: Prentice, 1987. 532-60.</p><p><br />Hutcheon, Linda. "Crypto-Ethnicity." <i>PMLA</i> 118 (1998): 28-33.</p><p><br />Legault, Josée. "Trois solitudes." <i>Le Devoir</i> [Montréal] le 15 novembre 1995 : A6.</p><p><br />—. <i>L'invention d'une minorité : Les Anglo-Québécois</i>. Montréal : Boréal, 1992.</p><p><br />Leith, Linda. "New English Fiction from Quebec." Introduction. <i>Telling Differences: New Fiction in English from Quebe</i>c. Ed. Linda Leith. Montreal: Véhicule, 1988. 4-7.</p><p><br /><i>Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage</i>. Ed. Margery Fee and Janice McAlpine. Toronto: Oxford UP, 1979.</p><p><br />Marcotte, Gilles. "Neil Bissoondath disait..." Conférence. "Le Québec anglais : Littérature et culture." Centre d'études québécois, Université de Montréal. 25 avril 1997.</p><p><br />Sollors, Werner. "Introduction: The Invention of Ethnicity." <i>The Invention of Ethnicity</i>. Ed. Werner Sollors. New York: Oxford UP, 1989. ix-xx.</p><p><br />Taylor, Charles. <i>Reconciling the Solitudes: Essays on Canadian Federalism and Nationalism</i>. Montreal: McGill-Queen's UP, 1993.</p><p><br />Vachon, Robert. "Qui est québécois?" <i>Qui est Québécois?</i> Ed. Robert Vachon et Jacques Langlais. Montréal : Fides, 1979. 119-51.</p><p><br />Waddell, Eric. "Cultural Hearth, Continental Diaspora: The Place of Québec in North America." <i>Heartland and Hinterland: A Geography of Canada</i>. Ed. L.D. McCann. 2nd ed.Scarborough: Prentice, 1987. 149-72.</p><p><br />Yanofsky, Joel. "The Silence of the Lamb Lobby." <i>The Gazette</i> [Montreal] 26 Apr. 1997: i1 and i4.</p><p><br />1. Quebec's second-largest French-language daily</p><p><br />2. The second referendum on Quebec sovereignty was held on October 30, 1995. The vote was 50.56%(2,360,717) against and 49.44% (2,308,072) in favour of the resolution to grant the present government of Quebec the right to declare independence from Canada within one year. There had been a significant and continuous exodus of English-speaking residents from the province of Quebec since prior to the first referendum in May of 1980 in which the sovereigntist declaration was rejected 58.2% (2,258,002 "no votes") to 41.8% (1,619,662 "yes votes"). The English-speaking communities have become more and more the focus of attention because of their declining numbers and status within Quebec, and<br />because of the pivotal role these communities continue to play in holding the Canadian federation together and, consequently, obstructing the sovereigntist aspirations of French-speaking Quebecers.</p><p><br />3. "A name/title intended to evoke a reaction" (my translation, as are all subsequent translations)</p><p><br />4. "According to the author, there does not really exist in Quebec a community of English Quebecers. This 'minority' was created from scratch for strategic reasons."</p><p><br />5. Based largely on her reading of journalistic and political texts, Legault concludes that the dominant Anglo-Québécois discourse is one of "desolidarization" (199) and "déresponsabilisation" (210), displaying attitudes thatare "nostagique" and "attentiste" (200) and encouraging "la resistance et la confrontation" (198).</p><p><br />6. Bills 63, 22, 101 and 178 were passed into law by successive provincial governments, both Liberal and Parti Québécois. They were designed to guarantee the preservation and growth of French by limiting access to education in English and the use of English on signs, and by requiring the use of French in larger businesses.</p><p><br />7. "A new identity started to be built, largely in reaction and, indeed, in opposition to the nationalist affirmations of Francophones and to the programs undertaken in their name by the government of Quebec."</p><p><br />8. The Parti Québécois, whose central mandate is the independence of Quebec from the rest of Canada, first came to power in 1976. The Parti Québécois has won three of five elections since 1976. They surrendered power to the Quebec Liberals under Robert Bourassa in 1985, and Bourassa's Liberals won again in 1989. The Parti Québécois returned to power in the election of 1994.</p><p><br />9. Legault cites Alliance Quebec documentation that the organization had over 40,000 members in 1989. In 1995, in an article covering the meeting between Parti Québécois Deputy Premier, Bernard Landry, and Alliance Quebec, The Gazette claimed that "Current membership stands at 3,700, down from 10,000 a decade ago." (see Hubert Bauch, "Alliance Meeting Turns into Love In.") The Equality Party emerged largely in reaction to the perception that the Quebec Liberal government under Robert Bourassa had not lived up to its promises to protect English rights. The Equality Party elected four members to the Quebec National Assembly in the 89 election, but none in the 1994 election.</p><p><br />10. This nascent Anglo-Québécois ethnicity might best be described as what Linda (Bortolotti) Hutcheon calls a "crypto-ethnicity" (see her essay "Crypto- Ethnicity" in <i>PMLA</i>). Not only is there reluctance to acknowledge Anglo-Québécois ethnicity in both English and French communities, but English Quebecers are a non-visible and, frequently, an aurally unrecognizable (when they speak French) minority. Hutcheon describes the pleasures and tensions of her own crypto-ethnicity as liberating, as "transethnic" and as "a reminder of the constructedness of all forms of ethnic identity"(32).</p><p><br />11. "Why go back to the past of the 'conquering' British of Quebec in the context of a study covering the years 1974 to 1991? Because this return to the past is essential to the analysis and comprehension of the 'dominant' discourse of English Quebecers of the last twenty years." In order to accept Legault's image of a pure British line (and a pure French line) one has to ignore the history and patterns of immigration and migration which have constructed the present-day communities. (See, for example, Cole R. Harris's "Regionalism and the Canadian Archipelago.")</p><p><br />12. "The English language, economic domination by Anglophones, as well as their own political culture, which they consider superior to that of Francophones, are at the very heart of their collective identity."</p><p><br />13. In "Canada in Fiction" Arnold E. Davidson, who is also the author of Mordecai Richler, judiciously distinguishes English Canadian, Québécois, French Canadian, Native and Ethnic writing but makes no explicit mention of English Quebec. There is no established critical tradition of identifying English Quebec literature. We might note the difference of nuance in Davidson's description of the first North American novel, Frances Brooke's The History of Emily Montague, as "both record and product of the coming into being of what will be Canada" (558) and Douglas Daymond and Leslie Monkland's description of the same novel, in their introduction to <i>Stories of Quebec</i>, as the beginning of "the tradition of anglophone fiction set in Quebec" (5).</p><p><br />14. The expression "lamb lobby" has come into currency in English Quebec to identify those English Quebecers who have adopted soft or passive or acquiescing attitudes toward Québécois nationalism and the minoritization of the English community. Conversely, the French equivalent of 'wolf lobby' (as in 'those who cry wolf') has gained some currency in the French Quebec media to identify English Quebecers in the public sphere who are viewed as strident, reactionary or simply hysterical.</p><p>15. Weintraub is the author of the novel <i>Underdogs</i> (1979) which presents a dystopian vision of a repressive and financially bankrupt independent Quebec. The precursor to this novel was likely Richard Rohmer's political thriller <i>Separation </i>(1976) which ends with a failed referendum vote, "48.3%" in favour of Quebec's independence.</p><p><br />16. "With increasing contact between the two languages, more and more French words—particularly those connected to provincial institutions, linguistic politics, and local life—have been assimilated into English, resulting in a new Canadian regional dialect: Quebec English." quoted in the <i>Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage.</i> Ed. Margery Fee and Janice McAlpine. Toronto: Oxford UP, 1997.</p><p><br />17. "<i>Vendu</i>" meaning "sold" appeared on many "for sale" signs on Quebec property following the election of the Parti Québécois government and prior to the first referendum. The double entendre is that "vendu" can also carry the sense of "a sell-out."</p><p><br />18. "a brioche," a French pastry</p><p><br />19. name of the General who led the French forces and was killed on the Plains of Abraham, the decisive battle leading to the British conquest of New France</p><p><br />20. "A Woodland Feast" or "Banquet in the Woods" but also implies something like "Party Hard"</p><p><br />21. French and Metis explorers in North America who generally travelled by canoe expanding the fur trade</p><p><br />22. women sent to New France to become pioneer brides</p><p><br />23. a Montreal restaurant with "haunted house" decor</p><p><br />24. word for word: "too much giving the blues"</p><p><br />25. very tacky and/or kitsch, but leaves open the possibility of being cute</p><p><br />26. a French-language Quebec daily with modest distribution, but generally considered culturally and politically significant: the paper of the intelligentsia</p><p><br />27. "many Anglophones remain prisoners of their refusal to imaginatively and creatively explore their identity and their connection to this Quebec land. They withdraw into their solitude and fear of the Francophone 'other.' All the more so when that 'other' is nationalist and sovereigntist...Happily, there exists in Montreal a growing number of Anglophones who do not fear the adventure of this exploration. Whether one considers the theatre companies—Centaur, Bulldog Productions, Blac Theatre Workshop and Theatre 1774—or the numerous authors, poets and composers, the desire to communicate and to create a distinct Anglo- Montreal culture is undeniable."</p><p><br />28. <i>Québécois de souche</i> literally translates as being "from the stump." The expression is usually translated as simply "old stock" but it implies that anyone so described can connect their family origins to the original pioneer inhabitants of New France. In daily usage, anyone who might appear to be a native of Quebec and who is a native speaker of Quebec French will be loosely identified as <i>Québécois de souche</i>. <i>Pure laine</i> (pure wool or 100% pure wool) is simply a more contemporary, colloquial version of the same idea. The obvious problem with these expressions is that, although they are typically used innocently and unconsciously, they inscribe a distinction between "real" Quebecers and "l<i>es autres</i>" (another common Québécois expression). Though these expressions seem acceptable as the signifiers of a minority's pride, they take on a different tenor as the common discourse of a nation on the threshold of independence.</p><p><br />29. "money and some ethnic votes." Though the Premier resigned the next day, this remark continued to elicit concern, bewilderment and outrage. Mr. Parizeau is a graduate of the London School of Economics. In "Canada in Fiction," Arnold Davidson classifies the Premier's late wife, Alice (Poznanska) Parizeau, as an "ethnic novelist" (574).</p><p><br />30. "But finally, can you tell me what is a Québécois?" "A Québécois is someone like me." This is hardly the first time the question has been asked. See, for example, Robert Vachon and Jacques Langlais' <i>Qui est Québécois? </i>in which the authors conclude: "<i>Nul d'entre nous n'est vraiment Québécois. Nous somme tous et chacun des Québécois en voie de ledeveni</i>r" (151). ["No-one among us is really Québécois. We are each and every one of us Québécois in the process of becoming."]</p><p><br />31. "A Quebec citizen, Neil Bissoondath is not a Québécois writer..." "There is clearly no such thing as an Anglo-Québécois literature..."</p><p><br />32. "though it is undeniable that a certain number of Anglophones do indeed reside in Quebec, one cannot, however, speak of the existence of an Anglo- Québécois 'community.'"</p><p><br />33. "'québécois' in the territorial and not the cultural sense of the term"</p><p><br />34. The "partitionist movement" typically traces its roots to Pierre Trudeau's declaration that "If Canada is divisible, then Quebec is divisible." One of the effects of the last referendum was to clearly identify those (ethnic/anglo) regions which were strongly against independence. Certain municipalities have attempted to pass resolutions indicating their determination to remain a part of Canada should Quebec secede.</p><p><br />35. "According to a survey undertaken by the <i>Montreal Star</i> in 1976, only 20% of Quebec Anglophones worked exclusively in French, and the majority of this 20% was from origins other than British. In effect, nearly all the workers of British origin still worked in their own language."</p><p><br />36. "You would have to live on another planet to believe that Montreal will one day be unilingually French."</p><p><br />37. On December 6, 1989, an anti-feminist gunman killed 14 women at l'École Polytechnique of the Université de Montréal</p><p><br />38. slang term for the popular language of Quebec. It derives from a claim that Quebecers pronounced the French word for 'horse' as 'joual' rather than 'cheval.' <i>Joual</i> has become an object of some pride in Quebec, particularly as its poetic qualities are displayed by Michel Tremblay, Quebec's master playwright and novelist.</p><p><br />39. "small grocery store or corner store"</p><p><br />40. traditional all-night family party</p><p><br />41. adjective for light-headed or spirited or wild behaviour or character</p><p><br />42. night club featuring French folk singers and, often, sing-alongs</p><p><br />43. For example, in <i>Reconciling the Differences</i>, Taylor writes: "...there is something exaggerated, a dangerous overlooking of an essential boundary, in speaking of fundamental rights to such things as commercial signage in the language of one's choice. One has to distinguish between, on the one hand, the fundamental liberties...and, on the other hand, the privileges and immunities which are important but can be revoked for reasons of public policy..." (176-7).</p><p></p><p></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-25967944246780927962022-05-14T09:04:00.009-07:002022-05-15T09:19:05.154-07:00If Men Could Get Pregnant . . . <h3 style="text-align: left;">If Men could get pregnant . . . </h3><p>It is my counterfactual conviction (meaning it is what I absolutely believe but as a hypothetical cannot be proven with evidence) that if men could become pregnant, the question of abortion would never have arisen. If men were capable of giving birth, it never would have crossed anyone's mind that the termination of a pregnancy needed to be governed by legislation, let alone criminalized. Conversely, the termination of a pregnancy is a question because of the inferior status assigned to women throughout Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman history and culture. Only in the 20th century have women been grudgingly assigned the status of "personhood," and we continue to struggle with the implications of that assignment.<br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Women Are to blame . . . men say so . . . <br /></h3><p>Woman have hard lives. Men justify the suffering of women through mythology. In the Christian tradition, Eve brought evil into the world and is therefore responsible for the suffering of all women. In Greek tradition, Pandora opened the box which released evil into the world. In Aeschylus' ancient Greek trilogy, <i>The Oresteia</i>, Orestes is put on trial by the gods for murdering his mother, Aegistheus, after she killed his father, King Agamemnon. The conclusion of the trial is that Orestes is not guilty of a crime because his first loyalty was to his father. Orestes was, first and foremost, the son of his father and his mother was simply the vessel of his birth. Three thousand years later, that verdict is still being debated.<br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Tremblay v. Daigle (1989) <br /></h3><p>In 1989, the Supreme Court of Canada, in <a href="https://nafcanada.org/history-abortion-canada/" target="_blank">Tremblay v. Daigle, ruled that "a father has no right to veto a woman's abortion decision</a>." However, Daigle had already gone to the US to terminate the pregnancy before the Supreme Court ruled. Why are the courts, the judiciary branches of government in both Canada and the USA, which can interpret but have no power to create or change the law, being left to decide the abortion question? The simple answer is that the executive branch, the men we elect (and yes the executive branch is dominated by men), has no interest in passing laws that would give individual women the power to decide to terminate a pregnancy.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"> Roe v. Wade (1973)<br /></h3><p>No new laws were passed, but abortions became legal when the Supreme Courts in Canada and the USA (re)interpreted their respective constitutions as giving women the right to terminate a pregnancy. In <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/" target="_blank">Roe v Wade (1973)</a>, the US Supreme Court heard the case of Jane Roe (a play on Jane Doe) against Henry Wade, Attorney General of Texas. Roe's complaint was that the laws of Texas prevented her from terminating her pregnancy by forcing her to travel to another state and pay for an abortion. Roe was accompanied in her petition by another Texas couple and a doctor who had already been convicted of performing abortions and had two more accusations pending. In the end, the Supreme Court accepted to hear only Jane Roe's case. Allowing Roe's case to even be heard was challenged because she became pregnant in 1970 and by the time her case was before the Court she had already given birth. Nonetheless, the Court heard her petition and ruled that preventing her from having an abortion was unconstitutional based on various clauses of the US constitution relating to "privacy" and "liberty of the person." Consequently, the laws of Texas and, by extension, the laws of any state which attempted to curtail a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy were determined to be unconstitutional. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">R. v. Morgentaler (1988)<br /></h3><p>A similar scenario unfolded much later in Canada. The Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms were enacted in 1982. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in R. v. Morgentaler, that abortion laws were unconstitutional, according to the 1982 constitution, because they <a href="https://nafcanada.org/history-abortion-canada/" target="_blank">"infringed upon a woman's right to 'life, liberty and security of person'."</a> Since that time, in Canada, a woman's right to an abortion has been unrestricted. The Mulroney Conservative government attempted to pass a law in 1992 which would impose a two-year prison sentence on doctors performing abortions, but the bill died in the Senate.<br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/read-justice-alito-initial-abortion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504" target="_blank">Justice Alito's majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade</a> <br /></h3><p> The abortion question is very much back in the legacy media since <i>Politico</i> published <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/read-justice-alito-initial-abortion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504" target="_blank">a leaked draft of Supreme Court Justice Alito's majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade</a>. This year, the case of the Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was brought before the Supreme Court. The State of Mississippi is proposing a prohibition on non-therapeutic abortions after sixteen weeks of pregnancy. At first glance, the proposal might not seem unreasonable. However, some states are proposing to ban abortion after six weeks which would effectively ban most if not all abortions. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, these various state bills prohibiting abortion would almost immediately become law.<br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">What the Bible says about abortion <br /></h3><p>Despite US claims of separation between church and state, it is obvious that anti-abortion, pro-life movements are underpinned by powerful evangelical lobbies. I remain dumbfounded that at this point in human history, evangelism, the literal interpretation of the Bible, can still have a profound influence on American politics. (See <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2016/10/how-many-americans-think-planet-earth.html" target="_blank">How Many Americans Think Planet Earth Is 6000 Years Old?</a>) Moreover, even if we accept literal interpretations of the Bible, as I have pointed out previously (see <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2014/03/what-bible-translation-says-about.html" target="_blank">What Bible Translation Says about People Who Oppose Abortion)</a>, despite attempts by Thomas Nelson Publishers to rewrite the Bible in the 1970s, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&version=AKJV" target="_blank">Exodus 21:22</a> is explicit that a fetus is not equivalent to a human life.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">When Life begins <br /></h3><p>Much of the debate concerning abortion, including in Roe v. Wade and the Alito opinion, eventually turns to the question of at what point a fetus is considered equivalent to a human person or, more abstractly, at what point life begins. Typically, pro-life arguments contend that life begins at conception. In Western practice, life is taken to begin at birth. We measure age by and celebrate birthdays not conception-days.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">When Life begins according to the Bible <br /></h3><p>If we turn to the Bible to determine when life begins then the story of Onan becomes relevant. These days, "onanism" is a synonym for masturbation. However, what exactly Onan's sin was and how the biblical story should be interpreted are much debated. When Onan's older brother died, Onan was, according to old-testament law, required to conceive a child with his brother's widow. He went to his sister-in-law but, instead of completing the sex act as required, he "<a href="https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0138.htm#1" target="_blank">spilled it [his seed] on the ground.</a>" If we want to take the Bible literally, one possible interpretation is that life begins with a man's seed and Onan's sin, wasting his seed, was equivalent to terminating a human life. If you kill the seed, you kill the flower. God's punishment for Onan was death. If we want to base modern laws on Bible stories, then any man who masturbates, scratches his testicles carelessly, uses a condom or does anything to interfere with his own semen is guilty of the same crime as a woman who terminates a pregnancy. Needless to say, no government has ever considered legislating, let alone criminalizing, how a man treats his own semen. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Alito's Argument overturning Roe v. Wade <br /></h3><p>Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, according to various commentators, tends toward hyperbole and arrogance. His <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/read-justice-alito-initial-abortion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504" target="_blank">draft majority opinion</a> shows evidence of both, especially when we consider that he is critiquing the work of his predecessors and two decisions of past Supreme Courts: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Alito's argument, in contradiction to earlier Supreme Court decisions, can be boiled down to:</p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion [. . . .]" <br /></li><li>Abortion is not equivalent to any of the various rights and freedoms that are claimed as implicit under the constitution. </li><li>"Liberty of the person" does not include the right to an abortion because of the moral issue and debate concerning the rights of the fetus as a "living person."<br /></li><li>In the absence of implicit or explicit coverage in the constitution, the Court must turn to US history, custom, tradition and precedent to determine its judgment. Alito asserts, in contradiction to the Court in 1973, that US history shows no openness to granting abortion rights.<br /></li></ol><p>Alito's conclusion:</p><p></p><blockquote><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/read-justice-alito-initial-abortion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504" target="_blank">We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. <i>Roe</i> and <i>Casey</i> must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.</a></blockquote><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Are Women's rights human rights?</h3><p style="text-align: left;"> Reading Alito's conclusion I am reminded of the refrain in Hilary Clinton's address to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations" title="United Nations">United Nations</a> <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_World_Conference_on_Women" title="Fourth World Conference on Women">Fourth World Conference on Women</a> held in Beijing: "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_are_human_rights" target="_blank">Women's rights are human rights</a>." Now we know the response: "Not in the USA."</p><p style="text-align: left;">Imagine that the Supreme Court ruled that whether or not a man could get a vasectomy would be determined by "elected representatives." Unimaginable . . . which is exactly the point.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Women Don't have rights because, in the eyes of the law, women don't exist</h3><p style="text-align: left;">There is a slippery, slight-of-hand argument running throughout Alito's opinion. Alito claims that removing the right to decide the termination of a pregnancy does not discriminate against women. Citing early court cases, Alito argues there are precedents which establish that women are not a group being discriminated against. The dividing line created by an earlier court case is between "<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/484/" target="_blank">two groups --
pregnant women and nonpregnant persons. While the first group is
exclusively female, </a><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/484/" target="_blank">the second includes members of both sexes.</a>" In this perspective, since women do not exist as group, it is not possible to claim that restricting abortions discriminates against them. Therefore, state laws prohibiting abortions would only discriminate against "pregnant women," and it would be left to individual states to balance the rights of pregnant women and those of "unborn living persons." In this latter case, curtailing the rights of pregnant women would be justified if state legislators believe that a fetus is a living person with equal rights. What this slippery argument willfully ignores is that what is being taken away is not just the right of some women to a medical procedure; what is being taken away from all women is the right to decide.</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdqzn-BUzc2o_Q4OMUuVGBYFB_BVokHwZW3lRnzthQyVcWVsqX9yOiSvim29EjsPD_-TOAHwf5xGxaykjnCY95YlPJlJENOaX2yS2WWtrDuWvkWcwVZtG07SqojY3mlbue7uSB5F57v5qHWmB_xwZKKtwGkjvmSDIzFSS7FYBLjI_FpawF1MaM5OCjvg/s2215/the-handmaids-tale-hardcover-ruled-journal-1-9781683836940_hr.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2215" data-original-width="1400" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdqzn-BUzc2o_Q4OMUuVGBYFB_BVokHwZW3lRnzthQyVcWVsqX9yOiSvim29EjsPD_-TOAHwf5xGxaykjnCY95YlPJlJENOaX2yS2WWtrDuWvkWcwVZtG07SqojY3mlbue7uSB5F57v5qHWmB_xwZKKtwGkjvmSDIzFSS7FYBLjI_FpawF1MaM5OCjvg/w126-h200/the-handmaids-tale-hardcover-ruled-journal-1-9781683836940_hr.jpg" width="126" /></a></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"> So What!?</h3><p style="text-align: left;">The Supreme Court decision will be a victory for evangelicals, 80% of whom voted for Donald Trump knowing he would appoint conservative justices and predicting that this day would come. Justice Alito is obviously right that US history does not provide precedents for allowing individual women to decide what happens to their own bodies for the obvious reason that American history is a history of discrimination against women. Arguing that the future must be a continuation of the past is, more or less, a definition of "being conservative."</p><p style="text-align: left;">In practical terms, the new laws will force some woman (in southern states) to face the cost and inconvenience of traveling out of state to terminate a pregnancy. Consequently, the greatest burden will be borne by the poorest of women. In the abstract, women's rights and sovereignty over their own bodies will revert to 1970. We might hope that since the majority of Americans support a woman's right to decide, they will elect representatives who will legislate this right. But, somehow, despite the promises of democracy, the will of the majority rarely succeeds against the power of lobbies and interest groups.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">What about Canada?</h3><p style="text-align: left;">Could the same happen in Canada? The mechanisms are exactly the same. Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the government. Five of the nine current members of the Supreme Court were appointed by the Conservative government. These days, various Conservative politicians promise that they will not introduce abortion legislation. Such promises are irrelevant. If someone brings a case to the Supreme Court tomorrow, the Court could overrule R. v. Morgentaler (1988) and abortion law would revert to 1969. Abortion would become illegal in Canada unless a committee of doctors decide it was necessary to save a woman's life or health.</p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-69912603525268246892022-04-20T09:24:00.004-07:002022-12-04T07:25:13.462-08:00 Transtextuality in Film Adaptation: Fidelity Revisited<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Presentation to a Joint session of the Association for Canadian and Quebec Literatures and the Film Studies Association of Canada, Monday, May 30, 2005; University of Western Ontario</span><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br /></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOFCRyFZl0MQmv0l8IsNSkPzajTQRPGIyDxH1zq1H1QMtpdnyD7iD6cXmWRYULUe9sxx-Zi_ijC1m_Mn2ZAfLPHPL40jLUnEyok44PBtl2L0kAJ7RCdhonL96-vR206hDMNPrTewloEmWNHtAKRcon-up924lkwm23lu9dvskDVOw6F2xQOa119s0o4w/s478/a43b42c6989eb1fc7d831d1d5be954d3.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="478" data-original-width="320" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOFCRyFZl0MQmv0l8IsNSkPzajTQRPGIyDxH1zq1H1QMtpdnyD7iD6cXmWRYULUe9sxx-Zi_ijC1m_Mn2ZAfLPHPL40jLUnEyok44PBtl2L0kAJ7RCdhonL96-vR206hDMNPrTewloEmWNHtAKRcon-up924lkwm23lu9dvskDVOw6F2xQOa119s0o4w/s320/a43b42c6989eb1fc7d831d1d5be954d3.jpg" width="214" /></a>In a course on American literature, I typically showed students scenes from Martin Scorsese’s film adaptation of the Edith Wharton novel, <i>The Age of Innocence</i>. The Scorsese film is what one would commonly describe as a faithful adaptation of the novel–a Visconti-style film fitting to the turn-of-the-century splendour and mannerisms which Wharton describes. Most of the film’s dialogue and narration are pulled directly from the novel. The scene from the film which I presented to students is the major turning point of the narrative in which May Archer, the novel’s most conspicuous symbol of innocence announces to her husband, Newland, that Countess Olenska, her cousin who was about to become Newland’s mistress, had decided to leave New York and return to Europe. In this scene, the novel announces to us May’s loss of innocence. She has lied to her cousin, claiming to be pregnant and thereby putting a stop to the affair which was about to take place and, in the same manoeuver, taking control of her husband. This episode is the turning point of the novel, and Wharton signals May’s loss of innocence by having her wearing her wedding dress on this occasion, which May has just torn and muddied while getting out of a carriage. At the very end of this crucial “loss of innocence” chapter, Wharton presents us with the image of May turning to exit “her torn and muddy wedding dress dragging after her across the room."</p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ll-D4vY8JWU" width="320" youtube-src-id="Ll-D4vY8JWU"></iframe></div><br /><p></p><p>This scene in the novel is markedly filmic, in that May’s loss of innocence is principally and forcefully signaled to us through the visual image of the “torn and muddy wedding dress.” The scene in Scorsese's film is as described in the novel, except that May’s dress is spotlessly clean and without a sign of a tear. How can we talk about this difference between film and novel, this absence of the “torn and muddy wedding dress”? I call it a mistake. An inexplicable oversight. An unaccounted-for error. </p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3p7L4cENcIK2og_ZH8Cfmd20ur8yLY4gjF4g-6oHZeAvgnCeYaSye7pz1ERbTespioiIEufZK7BHgUp6Ylaq8pXsaes3h1MLHIBNwCU8c0ZCSCHkjLr3-GTU8CAtugdk_Oy1TxkHaim3fl4iup1mrOyOXBVaU97FAe2yFKM-V9Kw3DUs1V3LlwH4KmQ/s332/220px-ColorPurple.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="332" data-original-width="220" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3p7L4cENcIK2og_ZH8Cfmd20ur8yLY4gjF4g-6oHZeAvgnCeYaSye7pz1ERbTespioiIEufZK7BHgUp6Ylaq8pXsaes3h1MLHIBNwCU8c0ZCSCHkjLr3-GTU8CAtugdk_Oy1TxkHaim3fl4iup1mrOyOXBVaU97FAe2yFKM-V9Kw3DUs1V3LlwH4KmQ/s320/220px-ColorPurple.jpg" width="212" /></a>I begin with this example, simple to signal that there are cases in which we can discuss the relationship between a literary work and a film in these terms. The director missed something or something went wrong somewhere. Once we admit this possibility we can begin to look at those changes which are matters of interpretation or intentional shifts from the themes and ideology of the literary work. An obvious example of the latter would be Steven Spielberg’s adaptation of Alice Walker’s T<i>he Color Purple</i>. The novel is a series of stories of women striving for and achieving independence from patriarchy. The novel’s heroine, the blues singer Shug Avery, resists all domination by men, most especially her own father who is an evangelical preacher. However, in the musical climax of Spielberg’s film, Shug Avery spontaneously and inexplicably decides to go to her father’s church and ask for his forgiveness, thereby contradicting not only the plot but the central theme and ideology of the novel. Spielberg’s attempts to privilege male-female relationships and male characters become laughably obvious in the conclusion of the film as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tL03oQzkmw" target="_blank">Spielberg makes the character identified as "Mister ---" the hero of the film through changes to the plot and then desperately reinforces this point through a series of shots and slow dissolve superimpositions not only intertextually connected to the film cliché of the hero riding off into the sunset but graphically reminding us that there is a man behind this film’s happy ending.</a></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9tL03oQzkmw" width="320" youtube-src-id="9tL03oQzkmw"></iframe></div><br /> <p></p><p> </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtDWvjOpF14ZgPghPNi9chG58dDK5FtoUBMHSWKtlXxqrTEWnQzK9noggY45kQj_Zd3pVI0N1-5Enn4e0yo8na5d8oOiulJAKZI8JYSr222nl1uo2aNC_Ee0jIvtS_iOBmDbo0afqPGOochAfU6GhNIS-ZehOcbMOF2kvwLj_NwSxJ4Hy8rgb5J591pg/s327/One_Flew_Over_the_Cuckoo's_Nest_poster.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="327" data-original-width="220" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtDWvjOpF14ZgPghPNi9chG58dDK5FtoUBMHSWKtlXxqrTEWnQzK9noggY45kQj_Zd3pVI0N1-5Enn4e0yo8na5d8oOiulJAKZI8JYSr222nl1uo2aNC_Ee0jIvtS_iOBmDbo0afqPGOochAfU6GhNIS-ZehOcbMOF2kvwLj_NwSxJ4Hy8rgb5J591pg/s320/One_Flew_Over_the_Cuckoo's_Nest_poster.jpg" width="215" /></a></div> <br />My sense of outrage at the Spielberg film is somewhat tempered when I come to consider the Milos Forman adaptation of Ken Kesey’s <i>One Flew Over the Cuckoos’ Nest</i>. There is a parallel in the cases in that the Kesey novel is an explicit defense of masculinity to the point of suggesting that mental illness and male suicides are a direct result of emasculation and the suppression of masculine sexuality, desires and values, which the Forman film significantly under-plays.<br /><br />In an essay entitled “Beyond Fidelity: The Dialogics of Adaptation,” Robert Stam argues:<br /><p></p><p></p><blockquote>The concept of intertextual dialogism suggests that every text forms an intersection of textual surfaces. All texts are tissues of anonymous formulae, variations on those formulae, conscious and unconscious quotations, and conflations and inversions of other texts. In the broadest sense, intertextual dialogism refers to the infinite and open-ended possibilities generated by all the discursive practices of a culture, the entire matrix of communicative utterances within which the artistic text is situated, which reach the text not only through recognizable influences, but also through a subtle process of dissemination.<br /><br />Intertextuality, then, helps us to transcend the aporias of “fidelity.”</blockquote><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"></p>
Although I agree with Stam in general terms, the question which his claim gives rise to in my mind is: Can the concept of adaptation survive in any meaningful or practical sense if “intertextual dialogism” generates “infinite and open-ended possibilities”?<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">If </span>we cannot find and argue for at least some meaningful, definite, assured points of contact and closure in the comparison of film and literary work, then what is it that prevents us from simply bracketing the concept of adaptation and completely divorcing novel from film in order to treat, analyze and interpret each independently. Despite the temptations of such a divorce, however, it seems clear that there will always be some sort of relationship between the film and the literary work upon which it is based. In fact, Stam goes on to argue for a defined set of relationships between film and novel by invoking Gerard Genette’s concept and taxonomy of transtextual relationships.</div><br />That relationship between film and literary work might be characterized as hypertext to hypotext, using Genette’s terms as Stam suggests; that is, the film hypertext could not exist as it is without the earlier existence of the literary hypotext. However, framed this way the relationship remains vague and ambiguous. In individual cases, the relationship could be one of agreement and mutual support, of premise and extrapolation, or the relationship could be antagonistic and critical. Whatever kind of relationship might exist between a film and the work from which it is adapted they fall within and can be judged and understood within some framework of coherence.<br /><br />In making this claim I am very much influenced by what Bertrand Russell among others calls a “coherence theory of truth”–which is to say that statements, signs, and semiotic units cannot be judged true or false through their correspondence to objects in the world. The only way we have available to us to judge truth is by verifying the degree to which a particular statement is coherent in relation to other statements, signs, events, objects and so on. I agree with Stam’s conclusion that
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"></p><br /><blockquote>[. . .] to look at adaptation is to see it as a matter of a source novel hypotext’s being transformed by a complex series of operations: selections, amplification, concretization, actualization, critique, extrapolation, analogization, popularization, and reculturalization. The source novel, in this sense, can be seen as a situated utterance produced in one medium and in one historical context, then transformed into another equally situated utterance that is produced in a different context and in a different medium. </blockquote><p>Novel and film are separated and connected through these various transformative processes. There is a connection, a relationship between them which can be judged within an inclusive pattern of coherence. This relationship between literary work and film, which is one of mutual, connected coherence, allows us to talk about adaptations in terms of something like fidelity. Films can be judged to be mistaken, false, “in bad faith,” reduced and inferior; or apt interpretations, honest, “true to the original” and even superior works of art, as well as critiques, rebuttals and parodies in relation to a literary hypotext. We can legitimately note a mistake in Scorsese’s film, claim that Spielberg’s film is a betrayal of the feminist ideology of <i>The Color Purple</i> and that Milos Forman’s film is a softening of the masculinist ideology of <i>One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest</i>.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9WpS6gAvcJq8E51rc9aoP68e4HDr7jaM27z5pGBIvmEKvdtQ3tWBHmozXF7IXcsOc040pVVxwwzCkR3qDbroj2FuXOBxuke0KJFDCgVsU-_P9CqwNxN6ZfYkvT2ICXmx17VXFjz8rY6Xvdyl37eS4h5dYJnnSgu_3TMkfYpIOjJXuU3VmIFbWxSNWJA/s1042/images.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1042" data-original-width="694" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9WpS6gAvcJq8E51rc9aoP68e4HDr7jaM27z5pGBIvmEKvdtQ3tWBHmozXF7IXcsOc040pVVxwwzCkR3qDbroj2FuXOBxuke0KJFDCgVsU-_P9CqwNxN6ZfYkvT2ICXmx17VXFjz8rY6Xvdyl37eS4h5dYJnnSgu_3TMkfYpIOjJXuU3VmIFbWxSNWJA/s320/images.jpg" width="213" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p><br />As we move from literary work to a commercial film for a mass audience there is typically a softening and watering down of themes and ideological implications of the literary work accompanied by a shifting down of architextuality to reduce the perlocutionary or affective impact on the audience. When transferred to film, tragedies become satires and thrillers, satires become melodramas, romances and comedies. A classic example of this shifting down would be Elia Kazan’s film version of Tennessee Williams’ <i>A Streetcar Named Desire</i>. In Kazan’s version, for example, the audience is prevented, by the sound of a passing train, from hearing Blanch Dubois’s speech in which she makes the metaphorical connection between raw sexual desire and the streetcar named Desire. More strikingly, although the play ends as a tragedy with a dark and seemingly omnipotent fate looming in the figure of Stanley Kowalski, the sexy gorilla, who as indicated in the stage directions: “kneels beside Stella [who is sobbing] and his fingers find the opening of her blouse.” The final line of the play is Steve the poker player’s announcement: “The name of the game is seven-card stud.” It is no accident that the last word of this play is “stud.” In the film version, Stella takes her baby upstairs to escape Stanley, promising in muttering tones that “he will never have the baby or touch me again.” The tragic drama thus becomes a satiric melodrama, with the villain Stanley being defeated in a last-minute reversal.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz6GW1PhRyflsRxIoHywKbeM-ubhuvTZYKYhSmiZXkQ6P8XAvjfkUGbMJl-iMmGs-NGBytFaXw-GSIUcG8OV7tGf4UmvOELVHbJJgRMIS5Uvy76J4L5xfxEphlMi3xdwj97BA_gfvGpyuBxj3Q6Gpircm2K2eQWqhHLiJXXzCRLbC2Z0oV5otznWoL8g/s1440/images-1.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1440" data-original-width="960" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz6GW1PhRyflsRxIoHywKbeM-ubhuvTZYKYhSmiZXkQ6P8XAvjfkUGbMJl-iMmGs-NGBytFaXw-GSIUcG8OV7tGf4UmvOELVHbJJgRMIS5Uvy76J4L5xfxEphlMi3xdwj97BA_gfvGpyuBxj3Q6Gpircm2K2eQWqhHLiJXXzCRLbC2Z0oV5otznWoL8g/s320/images-1.jpg" width="213" /></a></div><br /><p><br /><br />The shift of narratological structure and architextuality though significant does not yet approach the complexity of a comparison of film hypertext and literary hypotext which Stam has suggested. As every text is a collection, a tapestry of interwoven intertextual references, quotations, allusions and so on, a key to comparing film and literary work is through this intertextuality. <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx3cGhzaXJwcm9qZWN0fGd4OjY3NzZmYjI0YzhlODNkMjk" target="_blank">Kurt Vonnegut’s short story “Who am I this time?”</a> offers a clear example of what I wish to suggest because the story depends so heavily upon on intertextuality to get its satiric point across. In Vonnegut’s story, the small town of North Crawford’s theatre club decides to produce <i>A Streetcar Named Desire</i>. The play having been chosen, the director discovers that the town has a surplus of older, faded ladies who could play the role of Blanche Dubois, but no-one who could play her sister, the young and passionate Stella. The choice of this particular intertext, <i>A Streetcar Named Desire</i>, allows Vonnegut to display, in a particularly effective way, the malaise associated with the aging and near disappearance of small-town America. A second, significant intertext in Vonnegut’s story is Shakespeare’s tragedy of passionate young lovers, <i>Romeo and Juliet</i>. <br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigJy8JNTKcB9hOs2ywwWwRU1azMZH82bG7AWkRUYEPOBdlbVOao4Z-kTzmqHSBzhY-kgOtncaaNnSF8aacPYJb_TWYgZPQjdDLBUik12AwQlLHN-Zr8Aryjx8iCA87T3Kv_abaVmJLviWz3DsuHk7_49Ww0QxLcshIhxZEPgHEZ_LRAOV85eWY-Tby_A/s2560/81KE9vpRjzL.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2560" data-original-width="1603" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigJy8JNTKcB9hOs2ywwWwRU1azMZH82bG7AWkRUYEPOBdlbVOao4Z-kTzmqHSBzhY-kgOtncaaNnSF8aacPYJb_TWYgZPQjdDLBUik12AwQlLHN-Zr8Aryjx8iCA87T3Kv_abaVmJLviWz3DsuHk7_49Ww0QxLcshIhxZEPgHEZ_LRAOV85eWY-Tby_A/s320/81KE9vpRjzL.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br /><p><br />In the made-for-television film based on this short story, the intertextual references; ie, <i>Streetcar</i> and <i>Romeo and Juliet</i>, are maintained. In the film, the satire of the short story is reduced and the narratological structure is transformed into romantic comedy in two obvious ways. The first is that the director fills street scenes with young women who are supposedly residents of the town. The film then introduces a third major intertext; the proposal scene from Oscar Wilde’s <i>The Importance of Being <br />Earnest</i>.</p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p>A key to understanding any text is how it uses and/or transforms an intertext. Oscar Wilde’s play is a satire. The proposal scene, in which Earnest Worthing proposes to his love, Gwendolyn, is a parody of the balcony scene from <i>Romeo and Juliet</i>. Shakespeare’s Juliet is willing to be frank, throws the rules of courtly love out the window and dares to ask: “What’s in a name?” And answer: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Oscar Wilde’s Gwendolyn, in contrast, is a dogmatic believer in the rules of propriety and has always dreamed of marrying and will only accept to marry a man named Earnest. Knowing about Juliet is the key to understanding Gwendolyn’s fetish for the name Earnest, and essential to getting Wilde’s irony and satire.<br /><br /><div>In the made-for-television version of “Who am I this time?” the scene from Earnest is flattened of its satiric import. The scene becomes a lighthearted but sincere proposal of marriage, reiterating rather than parodying the romantic and passionate love already echoed in the <i>Romeo and Juliet</i> and <i>Streetcar Named Desire</i> intertexts. It would be tempting to suggest that, in the adaptation process, if the intertext is transformed from satire to romantic comedy, then the film as a whole will perform the same transformation. Although I think such a claim would warrant investigation, I am not prepared to go quite that far at this point. What I am prepared to suggest is that we should pay particular attention to what happens to transtextual elements as we move from literary work to film and that these elements can become the concrete evidence of the transformation that has taken place in the process of adaptation. Both film and literary work are coherent structures and a change in the intertext must be accompanied by other transtextual and textual adjustments in order to maintain some sort of overall coherence in the film hypertext. With this in mind, I would like to consider two Canadian examples: <i>The Handmaid’s Tale</i> and <i>Anne of Green Gables</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Peter Dickenson has already pointed out that<blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><blockquote>[. . .] the 1990 film of Margaret Atwood’s <i>The Handmaid’s Tale</i> [. . .] turned Atwood’s dark dystopian and ironic feminist text into a stock Hollywood romance, complete with a traditional happy ending in which the boy presumably gets the girl.</blockquote></div></blockquote>Although I agree in general terms with this description of the adaptation process, I would like to offer a slight variation by focusing on the transformations of the transtextuality from novel to film.</div><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs1zyRnPWRpt2ySz5fRUN2RwpXWG2i1yurADhCbu80509ZgSjp-hhIlshlIojIit8tWNMsEaXW3w173wJzYhu2rmd4qyJ8tnpDcNgaoP8_GpK_ihBrmpp0pNmsPvOwO2rINxRIuLKAjqPNbYGERBxnxXAiTBFE05AgP-lnDqrbIonMgepiEpaxXdqPRg/s381/TheHandmaidsTale(1stEd).jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="381" data-original-width="250" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs1zyRnPWRpt2ySz5fRUN2RwpXWG2i1yurADhCbu80509ZgSjp-hhIlshlIojIit8tWNMsEaXW3w173wJzYhu2rmd4qyJ8tnpDcNgaoP8_GpK_ihBrmpp0pNmsPvOwO2rINxRIuLKAjqPNbYGERBxnxXAiTBFE05AgP-lnDqrbIonMgepiEpaxXdqPRg/s320/TheHandmaidsTale(1stEd).jpg" width="210" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p>Atwood’s novel opens with three paratextual citations: a quotation from the Bible which is the core of the novel and justifies the existence of the handmaid function, an epigrammatic quote from Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” which clearly signals that what we are about to read is a satire, and a Sufi proverb. The film does away with these epigrams and substitutes a new paratext which establishes a new intertextual allusion to children's fairy tales. The film begins with a paragraph-long summary/comment projected on the screen: “One upon a time there existed a country called Gilead [and so on].” Rather than using any of the novel’s literary intertexts, such as the references to Chaucer’s <i>Canterbury Tales</i>, the film opens with a series of filmic allusions: a James-Bondish gun battle on a snow-covered mountain, a repeated fairy-tale-like image of a female child wandering lost in the mountains, scenes of a train station and a military occupation alluding to the Holocaust, and scenes of the handmaids which give a nod to the genre of prison film. In my reading of the film, the adaptation begins to make sense as an adaptation at a very precise moment. In the film, as in the novel, the Handmaid is brought to meet Serena Joy, the Wife of the Commander whose child she will be expected to conceive. In the dialogue between Handmaid and Wife, in the film, Serena Joy pointedly mentions: “This is your first time.”</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEaudR2jVGskvWoO6nvG3TBKqbouhf96NNYcJEt7IjF1SVWpE_muaIyIWVXqWYm1PDlAAorCDLFOJan2LRwUDeAVZJlpERM2fIIfIStvyWMdTsAYMcmg7i8FWvFqoNhQuzjViJpq0TvtyeOEFaCJfT9XhCDPSNOu88yZClm4a9tASLREGAM2CIyrfbyA/s384/Handmaids_tale.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="384" data-original-width="260" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEaudR2jVGskvWoO6nvG3TBKqbouhf96NNYcJEt7IjF1SVWpE_muaIyIWVXqWYm1PDlAAorCDLFOJan2LRwUDeAVZJlpERM2fIIfIStvyWMdTsAYMcmg7i8FWvFqoNhQuzjViJpq0TvtyeOEFaCJfT9XhCDPSNOu88yZClm4a9tASLREGAM2CIyrfbyA/s320/Handmaids_tale.jpg" width="217" /></a></div><p><br /><br />In the novel, however, Serena Joy says: “This is your third time.” Why does the film shift the situation from the Handmaid’s third to her first experience as a commander’s handmaid? In answering this question we discover the coherence of the adaptation process. The overall effect of the numerous changes made in the adaptation process are designed to transform the novel from a satire into a melodrama. In addition to its play on heightened emotions, what defines melodrama is its strict adherence to moral justice. In a melodrama, we are invariably presented with good and innocent characters threatened by conspicuous evil, a villain. The melodrama guarantees us a build-up of suspense through a predictable series of surprises and reversals leading to the last-minute rescue of an innocent victim by a good hero and in the denouement the assurance that justice has unquestionably been served. Atwood’s novel in addition to being a dystopian satire is the first-person narration of a woman’s internal struggle to survive. In the course of the novel, the Handmaid’s conscious decision to survive also implies that she must not only co-operate in her role as a handmaid but she chooses to play the role of a prostitute with her commander and then to be unfaithful to both her commander and her husband, Luc, by having an affair with Nic, the commander’s driver. The novel suggests to us that with time this handmaid might and future handmaids definitely will become adjusted and accepting of their roles and duties.<br /><br />The film eliminates these sources of internal conflict and moral ambiguity by making the Handmaid a figure of innocence and restructuring the storyline around the only conflict that melodrama permits: good and innocence versus evil. The once-upon-a-time epigraph and opening images of innocence (a child wondering lost) and evil (the Holocaust) suggestively reinforce the style and structure of the melodrama. In addition, in the film, the Handmaid’s husband is explicitly shown to have been killed whereas in the novel he is thought to still be alive. Nic is unquestionably heroic and an object of love, rather than the ambiguous, ultimately unknown, target of lascivious desire and source of the Handmaid’s infidelity to her husband, Luc. The film goes on to complete the Handmaid’s story in keeping with the structure of melodrama. She defeats evil by murdering the commander and is unequivocally rescued by her lover/hero in the nick of time (no pun intended). The film's denouement confirms her goodness, innocence and the happy ending of a victory over evil. The relationship between novel and film is the relationship between a satiric hypotext with undertones of tragedy and a melodramatic hypertext with undertones of romance.</p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgMpIFkOSUQ8VDCxkkZTKokwVcSMwbSkmvIlSXp6ocX5dcUaWNacgBCAbBorrimC6jnU6eysRobRY3MtZrPQPBWdJe41mR0gepek_yTlNjLJEH-2bPBJK8iQeB5Xnmo2Tf3sCl2DNqJPsBBetI8H2Uce_iphtMONiLfNyZ6RkuxMLnZVOqQASFxhNdpg/s500/41cpwYpPZ9L._SY498_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgMpIFkOSUQ8VDCxkkZTKokwVcSMwbSkmvIlSXp6ocX5dcUaWNacgBCAbBorrimC6jnU6eysRobRY3MtZrPQPBWdJe41mR0gepek_yTlNjLJEH-2bPBJK8iQeB5Xnmo2Tf3sCl2DNqJPsBBetI8H2Uce_iphtMONiLfNyZ6RkuxMLnZVOqQASFxhNdpg/s320/41cpwYpPZ9L._SY498_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="320" /></a><br /><br />In his essay “Stand by Your Man: Adapting L.M. Montgomery’s <i>Anne of Green Gables</i>,” Benjamin Lefebvre describes the television mini-series produced by Kevin Sullivan as transforming Montgomery’s novel from a satire of “the conventions of patriarchal romance” into “a conventional <br />romance." As Lefebvre points out, in the novel Anne and her friends attempt to act out Tennyson’s epic poem “Elaine and Lancelot”; however, the poem which Anne recites, in the miniseries, while floating down the river in imitation of Elaine’s funereal voyage to Camelot is Tennyson’s “The Lady of Shallot.” Lefebvre concludes that while “it would be worthwhile to consider the shift from Anne reenacting Elaine [. . .] to the Lady of Shallot, my point is that the intertextual referent for this scene in the 1985 miniseries is not Montgomery’s novel but the 1934 film."<br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEietbB3ybGwYRA-bDk3uL8TgLECd_4ZIICEzgN_a2dqRB3LKWKIlXDLEO5w2Nl1Lf2V8nnByK1r_C9MzfFb8G8WPTAhih_gOuaIrkmqDrVsUW1ZHqs20Nww2rOdhJHH3VPHnmDfxVPjiAIKPzugQYmceXsY9EJi_uiJvMLUaVK9sCIOxVGLExwX11nGbg/s1471/MV5BNjBmYjU2YjQtNjc3NS00NmMzLTk3OWUtNDM0ZDEyOGQ4ZWI0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMzU3MTc5OTE@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1471" data-original-width="1000" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEietbB3ybGwYRA-bDk3uL8TgLECd_4ZIICEzgN_a2dqRB3LKWKIlXDLEO5w2Nl1Lf2V8nnByK1r_C9MzfFb8G8WPTAhih_gOuaIrkmqDrVsUW1ZHqs20Nww2rOdhJHH3VPHnmDfxVPjiAIKPzugQYmceXsY9EJi_uiJvMLUaVK9sCIOxVGLExwX11nGbg/s320/MV5BNjBmYjU2YjQtNjc3NS00NmMzLTk3OWUtNDM0ZDEyOGQ4ZWI0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMzU3MTc5OTE@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg" width="218" /></a></div><p><br />I have a strong hunch that the intertexts for this scene in both audiovisual productions were the numerous paintings done of “The Lady of Shallot,” the most popular of which was painted in Gothic style by Waterhouse in 1883. Montgomery seems to assume that her readers will be well acquainted with the Elaine poem and is quite clear that Anne and her friends are. Sullivan’s production conflates the Elaine poem and “The Lady of Shallot” such that if we didn’t know better we would assume that “The Lady of Shallot” is the Elaine poem. Anyone familiar with the Elaine poem would know that Elaine is a beautiful young woman who is so stubbornly romantic that no-one can dissuade her from her decision to die of unrequited love–not her brothers, nor her father, nor Launcelot himself (the object of her unrequited love). “The Lady of Shallot” is a much more enigmatic and Gothic poem, and the Lady herself could not be connected to Anne. The Sullivan production uses the scene to promote a romance between Gilbert Blythe and Anne. In the novel, the scene between them concludes with Anne’s firm rejection of Gilbert’s offer of friendship. In the conclusion of this chapter of the novel, Anne announces to Marilla that “today’s mistake is going to cure me of being too romantic." In other words, Anne’s playing Elaine, the “lily maid,” has cured her of being like Elaine. If Anne plays the Lady of Shallot as she does in the film and miniseries she cannot be cured of the romanticism specifically associated with Elaine.</p><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYqPfhFQ7ZNna-4kzoaWxXlMFhcBfOpOOW7g4BTkVFUxBGEp7iucKCWpx_RdGwLVsUJZpgUDD8ddYs8c7VwULHr9t_MTGdUZ8wOkSarCXqojzf_q0JWR-Zxmx9lR1sedsn405HpGXiwIxpTOgoaTfbm9jL6yIMMI-PxreIEO58hb1LyPthF8s6yhwxvQ/s4180/John_William_Waterhouse_-_The_Lady_of_Shalott_-_Google_Art_Project_edit.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3208" data-original-width="4180" height="307" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYqPfhFQ7ZNna-4kzoaWxXlMFhcBfOpOOW7g4BTkVFUxBGEp7iucKCWpx_RdGwLVsUJZpgUDD8ddYs8c7VwULHr9t_MTGdUZ8wOkSarCXqojzf_q0JWR-Zxmx9lR1sedsn405HpGXiwIxpTOgoaTfbm9jL6yIMMI-PxreIEO58hb1LyPthF8s6yhwxvQ/w400-h307/John_William_Waterhouse_-_The_Lady_of_Shalott_-_Google_Art_Project_edit.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p>When we observe “Elaine and Lancelot” in relation to the other explicitly quoted intertexts of the novel such as “Pippa Passes” and “The Maiden’s Vow” we discover a common thread of women who remain single and chaste but have a profound effect on other people’s lives. This motif is carried forward in Anne’s life models and mentors: Old Mrs. Barry, Miss Stacy and Marilla. It also reminds us that all the male-female relationships of the novel involve strong women--Marilla, Mrs. Allen, Rachel Lind, and Mrs. Barry--and muted or absent men.<br /><br />In the TV version, Pippa and the poet Browning disappear. Elaine is erased by the Lady of Shallot, “The Maiden’s Vow” in which a woman simply prays to honour her lost courtier is replaced by a historical anachronism, “The Highwayman,” in which a barmaid commits suicide to warn her American lover that the British have set a trap for him. The television miniseries transforms Montgomery’s meliorist satire on the dialectic of Romanticism and Victorianism into a romantic comedy in which young lovers must overcome the blockage of an older character, Marilla. My suggestion is that these and other film adaptations of Canadian literary works can and should be read in the context of a coherent transtextual relationship which can be analyzed, perhaps judged, and certainly better understood when we closely attend to the intertextual and textual shifts which have taken place.<p></p><br />Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-78788105815647564932022-04-02T07:54:00.002-07:002022-04-21T11:35:15.085-07:00The Concept Formerly Known as Nationalism: Canadian Theatre in Theory and Practice<p>(<i>This post is a repurposing of a conference presentation from 2002</i>.)</p><p>Plenary Panel with respondents Djanet Sears, Richard Rose, Ker Welles and John Mighton, Association for Canadian Theatre Research (ACTR), 25 May 2002, University of Toronto</p><p><span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> Professor Jay Sour, PhD, GDCS, MA, BA</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br /></p><p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.8px;">In 1975, the theme for the newly-founded Association for Canadian and Quebec Literatures at the Learned Societies’ Conference in Edmonton was Canadian and Quebec theatre. Although the conference programme was designed as a series of “Confrontations” between French and English Canadian presenters, what emerged was a schism between academics, on one side, and theatre practitioners, led by George Ryga, on the other. Ryga would later write that the conference </p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px 22.6px;"></p><blockquote><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px 22.6px;">. . . left this observer with some critical questions about the role of universities as a supportive force in developments of Canadian drama in both languages. Well-intentioned and vigorous statements were made about critical study and publication of papers on our dramas. No doubt, these enquiries will have their effect. I am in agreement with the sardonic comment by Jean-Claude Germain that more young Canadians are now studying Canadian drama that will ever see it as a living art in our theatres.<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>1<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><br /></span></div><div><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">The first question I would like to put before the panel is: Has the situation improved since 1975? In 1975, I fully agreed with Ryga that the academy did not seem willing to fulfill its moral obligations to promote Canadian theatre. Today as a university professor I find Canadian theatre the most difficult subject matter I am required to teach. Despite the existence of organizations like the Association for Canadian Theatre Research, my impression is that the gap between the academy and the theatre, between theory and practice, has grown over the postmodern period. Is there reason, hope or even a desire to establish a framework for understanding the common ground of mutual interests among Canadian theatre practitioners and scholars?<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p>
<p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">In the '70s my answer to this question would have been, without hesitation, “yes,” but its justification would have been couched in terms of Canadian nationalism. The concept of nationalism seems to have proven endlessly problematic and, in the end, perhaps even a liability in this country. So, how do we get beyond the myths and negative stereotypes of Canadian nationalism? How do we get beyond what John Ralston Sal calls the “negative nationalism” of fear and panic leading to conformity, ethnocentrism and xenophobia? How do we steer clear of the pitfalls of essentialism and identity, as well as liberal-humanist illusions of universality? How do we get beyond that nationalism which has been so readily labelled as zealous, jingoistic, militant and even racist, or condescending multicultural pigeon-holing, imposed bi-culturalism, or hegemonic harmonization? How do we move toward an embracing and celebration of transculturalism and post-nationalism? How do we take advantage of what Robert Wallace calls “the opportunities [which indeterminacy] provides for social justice” and begin to imagine the as yet “unimagined” alliances he alludes to (<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><i>Theatre and Transformation in Contemporary Canada</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>52)? The objective of my presentation is to open reflection on how to continue the process of both theorizing and practising Canadian theatre as part of an “imagined community” or at least as a crossroads of many “imagined communities,” as part of what Denis Salter describes as “an ideological complex which to function completely must always subject its premises and methods to rigorous re-examination” and Richard Knowles calls the cultivation of “concerted difference and radical contingency.” How can we participate in what Charles Taylor characterizes as “deep diversity in which a plurality of ways of belonging would also be acknowledged and accepted” and Sal calls the “positive nationalism of an open debate”? </p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">The premise of my argument is simply this: No thing means anything by itself. In my thinking, meaning derives from one thing’s connections and relationships to other things, to the world around it. A text means something because it has a context. A sign, a gesture, a word, a phrase, a play, a performance, a life–each has the potential to mean something because it can be connected and related to some other matrix of signs, gestures, objects, ideas, lives. “Meaning,” in my thinking, is never sure, never guaranteed, never absolutely accurate or controllable. Meaning is an endless process with infinite potential. Conscious effort is required to grasp particular, specific meanings once the conditions are in place, but ultimately, I suspect, most meanings simply happen. We all do it, but I take artists in particular–such as playwrights, directors, designers and actors–to be in the business of putting things together in new and original ways and thus creating new meanings. Readers, audiences, critics, scholars, teachers and students engage in the process which the artist unleashes. Sometimes they “get” an intended meaning; sometimes they miss or misconstrue meanings; sometimes they add, transform and even enrich meanings. Most of the time they do all of the above. I take theatre artists and theatre scholars to be deeply and actively involved in this meaning-making process. We have a mutual vested interest in making meanings as full and rich as possible.<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">When I make the leap of speaking of Canadian theatre, Canadian playwrights, Canadian audiences, I do so, not to impose a restriction, not to suggest a requirement or even an objective. I think it is a sound, logical assumption that the meanings circulating through and around plays written and performed by Canadians and viewed by a Canadian public should be particularly rich, full, vigorous and apparent. If this is not the case, we need to wonder and ask why? <span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">To begin to illustrate my thinking in concrete terms I will have to outline where it and I came from. My first encounter with what might be called a nationalist issue was as a high school debater in a tournament at the University of Ottawa being asked to debate Mathews and Steele’s proposition that ‘two-thirds of Canadian university professors should be Canadian educated.’ I was opposed. When I was an undergraduate at Carleton University, Robin Mathews created a stir by publicly complaining that there was not a single Canadian literary work in the required first-year survey for English Majors. I was not impressed. Although I knew the lyrics of Leonard Cohen and Gordon Lightfoot, could recite poems by Robert Service, had read a number of Pierre Burton’s Klondike books and had seen all the episodes of <i>The Whiteoaks of Jalna</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>on TV<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"></span>, I felt an unmitigated pride in the superiority of my honours BA degree in English because I had been able to complete the first three years of it without ever being required to study a single piece of literature written by a Canadian. To add to my cynicism about a nationalist agenda, one summer of my undergraduate years I was part of a theatre troop which garnered an Opportunities for Youth grant by unabashedly claiming that we were going to spread the good news of national unity across the Maritimes. When a graduate student named Terry Goldie was invited to give a presentation on the history of Canadian theatre in one of my classes, I was honestly surprised to discover that some people thought there was such a thing as Canadian theatre, all the more so that it had a history. It was at this same moment that I happened to befriend Bill Law, a fellow student who shared my interest in theatre but who was, much to my discomfort, tightly connected with the Can Lit cabal at Carleton University.<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>In 1974 when (my friend) Bill Law and I had taken over the leadership of Sock ‘n Buskin, the Carleton University Drama Society, I was shocked and dismayed by Bill’s stubborn insistence that we were going to do a complete season of Canadian plays. I decided to follow along with Bill’s plan because I was convinced that he would see the folly of his aspirations as soon as we tried to put them into action. I thought I had proven my case when I checked out all the Canadian plays I could find in the Carleton University library–there were eight.<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px;"> Bill Law remained undaunted and in the next twelve months Sock 'n' Buskin produced six plays including the premiere of Robin Mathew’s problem drama, <i>A Woman is Dying</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"></span>, Mavor Moore’s musical <i>Sunshine Town</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>based on the Leacock sketches and Gerry Potter’s collective creation <i>Chaudiere Strike</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"></span>. The success of this season inspired us to join with Lois Shannon, Robin Mathews and Larry McDonald to form the Great Canadian Theatre Company in Ottawa with the continuing mandate of producing Canadian plays. Although I remained the token liberal in the years I served on the company’s board of management, this period of nationalist awareness left me with the clear impression that nationalism was an obvious and appropriate response to the kinds of events and situations I found myself facing in the mid to late '70s.<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">“Nationalist awareness” sounds terribly significant and expansive, but what I mean is simply that once the idea that Canada was a sovereign nation and, as such, should logically be promoting its own growth and development was in my head, I began to notice and question those times when it became obvious that this was not happening. For example, I discovered that in 1974 there was considered to be an appropriate language for doing theatre in English in Canada. When I called the Ottawa Little Theatre looking for a lead actor, I was surprised that the very first question I was asked was would I accept an actor with a Canadian accent. Thus, in a single moment, I discovered that there was such a thing as a Canadian accent (and, it slowly dawned on me that I must speak with this accent) and that it was not apt for the theatre. I found poetic justice in the fact that the first hit of The Great Canadian Theatre Company was an original play called <i>Yonder Lies the Valley</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>which required that the actors speak a broad Ottawa valley brogue and learn to step dance and appreciate the virtuosity of fiddle music.<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">At the 1975 Learneds, I was sitting beside Robin Mathews listening to A.J.M Smith present a paper on Michael Ondaatje’s <i>The Collected Works of Billy the Kid</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"></span>. When Smith concluded his paper with the comment that the play demonstrated that Canada didn’t have the kind of heroes which could be successfully dramatized on stage, Robin Mathews began to boo loudly. The room cleared quickly, everyone trying to get away, as fast and as far as possible, from Mathews. It probably didn’t help that someone had salted the rumour that I was Mathews’ bodyguard.<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">When I became involved in the process of trying to raise funds for the newly formed company, I quickly discovered that the most common reason given by granting institutions, various levels of government and individuals for not supporting the GCTC was that they already supported The Ottawa Little Theatre or The National Art Centre. When I pointed out that neither of these institutions produced Canadian plays, the argument had little purchase. In fact, despite my earlier impressions that a nationalist agenda was a guarantee of funding, I began to realize that almost the opposite was the case. The company’s mission to produce plays by Canadians seemed to put its credibility in question. <span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">Even after leaving the theatre company and beginning studies in film and television, I seemed condemned to nationalist epiphanies. I remember a university professor who was giving a course on Canadian film being asked why Don Shebib who had directed <i>Going Down the Road</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>had used only American actors for the leading roles in his film <i>Second Wind</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"></span>. The professor’s answer was that “there are no Canadian actors.” When pressed, he allowed that there were three or four significant Canadian actors, but if Donald Sutherland, Genevieve Bujold, Christopher Plummer and John Collicos were busy then a director would have to use American actors.<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">When I canvassed my fellow students in this course, I discovered that I alone preferred Shebib’s Canadian classic over his later work. As one of my fellow students so aptly explained to me, “it makes perfect sense that people would prefer the later film because it looked more like what they already knew and considered ‘good’; that is, an American film.”<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">In 1979 I happened to be in the control room in Toronto where CBC producers were receiving the feeds for the National News. Most of the footage for the Canadian news was being fed to us from American sources. The control room which was usually a somewhat noisy, bustling place went completely silent as everyone stopped to watch a series of scenes from David Fennario’s <i>Balconville</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>being broadcast to us from Montreal. When the sequence finished, the noise returned and the decision was quickly made not to include it in the National News. Instead of the scenes from <i>Balconville</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"></span>, there was an announcement that after three days in hospital John Wayne was resting comfortably. <span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">And so in the 70s, nationalism, to me, seemed like the right answer, a logical corrective response to what seemed to me obvious errors and oversights. Nationalism meant that Canadian theatres should be presenting plays written and produced by Canadians, and theatres which took the extra risk of presenting new and original Canadian works should be funded. It meant that theatre in Canada should be allowed to be done in whatever languages, dialects or accents Canadians happened to speak. To me, nationalism also meant that Canadians should be cognizant of the fact that there was an overabundance of talent in the country. Canada had the good luck and grace of attracting talented immigrants from around the world. Talented people were born and developed here. Canada had talent enough to export endlessly into the USA and still have enough left at home to keep life interesting. Nationalism meant recognizing that Canadians were as fit subjects for drama as the peoples of any other nation. Nationalism also meant educating audiences to an openness to new, original and different styles of performing art, and it meant that when a play came along that was of obvious interest and significance, the national media had an obligation to tell people about it.<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">But of course, nationalism was also the wrong response. Even within the Great Canadian Theatre Company, we talked about how we were a vanguard movement, a radical response to a temporary situation. When a hundred theatre companies started doing Canadian plays we would be happy to be put out of business. However, in the years that followed I discovered a heartfelt animosity toward nationalist agendas in the Canadian public–people telling me that they would never accept having Canadian theatre shoved down their throats. People who had never seen a Canadian play, couldn’t name a Canadian playwright and would be perfectly open to Italian theatre or German, or British or American theatre, still maintained that their liberty would be threatened by Canadian theatre. There was clearly a mythology of nationalism in Canada; and here I mean "mythology" in the terms used by Roland Barthes; that is, a connection of one word to others that did not derive from its denotation. The GCTC never seemed to be identified as simply a group of nationalists, but always as rabid, ranting, foaming-at-the-mouth nationalists in addition to being narrow, provincial, parochial and tribal. </p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">Of course, I understood the objections to nationalism in conceptual terms and from world history, but I still had trouble making sense of the objections in the Canadian context. <span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>Every textbook on the subject of Canada rehearses the same basic set of facts. At first glance, Canada doesn’t make sense as a country. Everything about the country’s social and physical geography suggests that it should not exist. We live in a country that is three thousand miles long, in which 90% of the population lives within a hundred miles of the American border; the vast territories to the north remain largely unknown to the majority of the population. We are divided by language, race, ethnicity, gender, by sexual and political orientation, province, region and class. The urban centres are growing, largely in isolation from one another, while every place else stagnates and shrinks. Such a place can only be held together through conscious and considerable human effort. Yet, nationalism seems to be a minor and extremely weak force in Canadian life. I grew up being told that this country was held together by a railway. The railway was sold because the truth was that in an age of communications the country was really tied together through its public broadcasting system. As soon as this notion had installed itself, the budgets of the CBC were massively slashed. Most recently the truism has become that Canada is held together by its distinctive network of social programmes: no sooner said than those programmes are under attack at every level of government in the country. On the basis of recent history, I am not about to propose that the theatre is or should be a means of holding the country together. </p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">Of course, I have often wondered about the distinct antipathy of Canadians toward nationalism. 1970s notions of colonial mentalities and inferiority complexes have never rung completely true for me. The idea of a capitalist conspiracy has at times seemed to supply at least the beginnings of an answer but, these days, the intentions of a globalized economy, though carried out behind closed doors, seem too apparent to be called a conspiracy. To me, Canadians seem quietly conceited about their nationality. </p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">For the sake of the discussion–because I think the discussion is all–let us bracket nationalism as an impediment and an attack on individual liberty. Let us remove Canadian nationalism from the discussion because of its potential associations with imperialism, racism, fascism, essentialism, patriarchalism, and xenophobia. But at the same time let us embrace this other thing that celebrates difference and the ex-centric, that takes into account the rights of individuals and the legitimacy of self-interest, as well as justice and reason, tolerance and openness, creativity and imagination, pleasure and play, and critical and aesthetic judgment but which, in the end, allows us to remain net promoters of Canadian theatre and the theatre in Canada. I am prepared to be unsentimental about the destiny of the Canadian nation, but I would consider it a tragedy if Canadians did not participate fully in the exchange and debate and decision-making process that determined its future and if theatre practitioners and admirers, teachers and critics were not part of that process. Let us resurrect the lost art of “conversation” (297) which Richard Gwyn alludes to in <i>Nationalism Without Walls</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>and recognize, as Ramsay Cook underlines, that the basic obligation of the nation is “peace, order and good government” and the provision of a structure to “protect cultural pluralism.” Then let us talk in and about a framework, a forum, an open debate, an <i>encadrement</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>, and recognize that it is time to prioritize problem-solving and construction. Perhaps we find a hint of the beginnings of what we might be looking for in Alain Filewod’s observation of the documentary theatre’s impulse to “accommodate rapid social change” (qtd in Wallace, 24).<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">I speak most humbly in the shadow of great projects and works on Canadian theatre that have been undertaken and completed by scholars in recent years. My sentiment is that this work has not been celebrated sufficiently and widely enough. I was also motivated to open this discussion after witnessing the presentations of Guillermo Verdecchia, Rahul Varma, Michel Marc Bouchard and Aviva Ravel at the Laval conference last year, and recognizing how much they had contributed to the vitality and the validity of the association’s meeting and wanting to encourage more of the same.<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">My remarks have been intended to create an opening where I perceived an impasse, a hesitance, a reluctance to discuss. It is an impasse which I see as having an effect on me as both as an <i>amateur</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>(I like the French word because it implies a lover) of the theatre in Canada and as a teacher. Last year I taught a course I had created called Anglo-Québécois Literature. As I told my students, I really didn’t know if there was such a thing as Anglo-Québécois literature and the course title should have ended in a question mark. However, the course gave me the excuse to present works by David Fennario, Vittorio Rossi and Colleen Curran, and to invite each of these playwrights to speak to the class. The students’ attitudes toward the concept of anything Anglo-Québécois ranged from chauvinistic attachment to pronounced antagonism, and there was little harmony in the writers’ responses to the expression. Nonetheless, the students’ awareness of the issues in question gave meaning to the works of these writers and significance to their presence. </p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-indent: 14.4px;">During the same period, I led a graduate seminar on Comparative Canadian Drama, a course which I regularly and apologetically describe to students as a study of forensics because although I intend that we should study the theatre, by which I mean the performance of plays, we, in fact, could only study history, biography, theory, and scripts together with our own readings, improvisations and background knowledge of performance. When I had the opportunity to invite David French, a playwright I have long admired, to this seminar, I realized that the students had very little means through which to relate to French and his work. The students had read <i>Salt-Water Moon</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>and Antonine Maillet’s much-praised translation of the same play, <i>La Lune Salé</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"></span>, but French was not really a Newfoundland writer although his play is set there, nor could he say very much about the business of translation. When asked about being a Canadian playwright, French’s answer was an icy “If I was being produced just because I was a Canadian; I’d rather not be produced.” Immediately, I thought, ‘<i>what a typically Canadian answer!</i>’ What Italian, Swedish, German, Japanese, English, French, Ethiopian, American, Moroccan or Iranian writer would answer the question “what does it mean to be a playwright of your nationality?” this way? I am in agreement with Filewod’s observation that “‘true Canadianism . . . can never be achieved” (“Between Empires” 14). I am not interested in a list of immortal features or a defined and regulated culture or an identity to call Canadian, but I would like to be able to have a conversation on the topic of “Canadian theatre” and “theatre in Canada,” whatever these expressions might mean, just to see where the conversation takes us. </p><p style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px;">1. qtd. in Rota Herzberg Lister’s “Constructing a Canadian Theatrical Culture: The 1975 Conference of the Association for Canadian and Quebec Literatures in Historical and Personal Perspective,” <span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><i>Textual Studies in Canada/ Études textuelles au Canada</i><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>, 6 (1995): 22-32.<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></p></div><div><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><br /></span></div>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-50553452236061361502022-03-25T05:54:00.004-07:002022-03-26T07:06:01.286-07:00Foreign Policy Realism: Can an Agreement on Ukrainian Neutrality End the War?<h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The USA and NATO are to blame . . .</span></span></h3><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In his 2015 lecture at the University of Chicago, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4" target="_blank">Professor John Mearsheimer argued that expanding NATO to Russia's borders was a mistake</a>. In 2022, Mearsheimer has continued to reiterate his position that a neutral Ukraine serving as a bridge between Russia and Europe would serve everyone's best interests: the Russians', the EU's, the USA's, the West's and especially and most importantly, the Ukranians'. As early as 1998, George Kennan, author of <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/george-kennan-sends-long-telegram-to-state-department" target="_blank">"The Long Telegram"</a> and "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html" target="_blank">architect of America's successful containment of the Soviet Union</a>" also decried the reckless and ill-advised expansion of NATO to Russia's borders. The expansion of NATO was a mistake, they argued, for two basic reasons: 1) it would eventually goad Russia into a hostile response and 2) it offered a false promise of military intervention to new member states (the USA was highly unlikely to engage in a nuclear war with Russia in defence of Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia, for example, when they had no strategic or economic value for the Americans). </span></span></p></div><div> </div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The "Historical pattern" counterargument</span></span></h3><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In a <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/stephen-kotkin-putin-russia-ukraine-stalin" target="_blank">New Yorker interview</a>, Stephen Kotkin, a scholar of Russian history, declares:</span></span></p></div><div><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/stephen-kotkin-putin-russia-ukraine-stalin" target="_blank">I have only the greatest respect for George Kennan. John Mearsheimer is a
giant of a scholar. But I respectfully disagree. The problem with their
argument is that it assumes that, had <i class="small">NATO</i> not
expanded, Russia wouldn’t be the same or very likely close to what it is
today. What we have today in Russia is not some kind of surprise. It’s
not some kind of deviation from a historical pattern.</a></span></span></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In a <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-michael-ignatieff-on-war-in-ukraine/" target="_blank">Globe and Mail </a>article entitled "<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-michael-ignatieff-on-war-in-ukraine/" target="_blank">To understand why Ukraine is under attack today, we need to look at Russia's actions over the last 70 years</a>," Michael Ignatieff adopts a similar "historical pattern" argument. Ignatieff writes: "This story of four Eastern European capitals, all under attack from Russia, over the past 70 years makes nonsense of the claim that NATO expansion eastward caused this crisis." </span></span></p></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></p></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Foreign Policy Realism</span></span></h3><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Perhaps because I have become so familiar with the aphorism which always accompanies financial advice--"Past performance is no guarantee of future results"--I find the "historical pattern" argument unconvincing. Additionally, a close focus on Russia's historical pattern of behaviour tells, at best, only half the story. Any attempt to analyze a global conflict would, logically, have to consider the American historical pattern of behaviour over the last 70 years: a 20-year war in Afghanistan, two wars in Iraq, the war in Yugoslavia, bombings in Syria, targeted assignations throughout the Middle East, interventions in Granada, Panama, Chile, Nicaragua, etc, etc, all the way back to the Vietnam War. Imagining, on behalf of the Russians, that they had nothing to fear from the US expansion of NATO and that what is happening can be completely explained by Russian imperialism and nostalgia for the Soviet Union strikes me as willful blindness.</span></span> </p></div><div><br /></div><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Reading <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-emma-ashford.html" target="_blank">Ezra Klein's NYT interview with defence and foreign policy analyst Emma Ashford</a>, I discovered that my thinking had a name: "foreign policy realism." As Klein explains:</span></span></p></div><div><div></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Realism is a political framework that understands international relations as a contest between relatively rational states for power and security. It’s pretty structural in that way. It sees the actions and activities of states as quite predictable, given their role and needs in the international security hierarchy.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">[ . . . .] It wants to be structural, not personal or individualistic.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In this case, there’s a particular realist analysis that has caught a lot of people’s attention, which is John Mearsheimer’s model of the conflict.</span></span></div></blockquote><div></div></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Realism, Neo-classical realism, game theory and chaos theory</span></span></h3><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Emma Ashford is, according to Klein, "what’s called a neo-classical realist. She begins with a structural, state-based, power-based analysis of realism, but then opens it up to more influence from domestic politics — the psychology of individual leaders, the messiness of reality." We've been here before in another context. My post "<a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2019/08/the-market-state-and-monkey-in-middle.html" target="_blank">The Market, the State and the Monkey in the Middle</a>" highlighted economist Jean Tirol's "game theory" which, like neo-classical realism in strategic studies, proposed that the traditional models based on the assumption that all agents would act in rational self-interest were inadequate because they failed to take into account the cognitive bias and ideology of individuals. I must also admit that I believe in "chaos theory" (see<a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2018/12/the-chaos-theory-of-international-trade.html" target="_blank"> "The Chaos Theory of International Trade"</a>), the idea that individual actions can unleash global consequences, as in the case of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrilo_Princip" style="color: #888888; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Gavrilo Princip</a><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">, </span></span>the Bosnian teenager whose assassination of Archduke Ferdinand is said to have started World War I. </span></span></p></div><div> </div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Danger of melodrama</span></span></h3><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In the current crisis, I retreat to realism because being rational and crediting our enemies with being rational is the only way to de-escalate and to avoid the worst possible of all catastrophes. As I have reviewed Western media coverage of the war, I have noted the high frequency of images of desperate women and children. The intent is to call upon our compassion and, of course, compassion is called for. But compassion over time and with increased intensity can become simply passion, overwhelming emotions which have no real objective but create an irrational antagonism towards Russia, Russians and all things Russian.</span></span></p></div><div><br /></div><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I have long observed that a story "has legs" in Western media if it manages to copy the structure of melodrama: strict moral justice, a courageous hero, an evil villain, innocent victims, suspense, and surprising happy ending--all the features which dominate our TV and film entertainment. The word "melodrama" is synonymous with heightened emotions and derives from the practice of playing music during a character's speech to raise the emotional intensity. An emotional response to the war in Ukraine is appropriate but the substitution of a melodramatic narrative for a clearheaded, rational awareness of what is going on is dangerous.</span></span></p></div><div><br /></div><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Consider Michael Ignatieff's recent article in the <i>Globe and Mail</i> ( O1, 06, 9 March 2022). Ignatieff writes:</span></span></p></div><div><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The Russians need to understand that if they stage a military incursion across the NATO border--Lenin's bayonet probing--they will be met by force, and if that fails to hold them, they will be met with nuclear weapons, at first tactical, and then as necessary, strategic, too.</span></span></blockquote></div><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">As a Harvard University professor, Ignatieff was a supporter of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. He was leader of the federal Liberal Party and, were it not for his impatience, forcing an early election that no one wanted, he might have become Prime Minister of Canada. In case you missed the gist of his halting prose, he is advocating a nuclear war against the country which holds the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on the planet. </span></span></p></div><div> </div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Claims of Putin's insanity make him more dangerous not less</span></span></h3><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Ashford, like Mearsheimer, is categorical that "Putin is a rational person [and] that he’s making rational decisions." However, Ashford contends that Putin is being ill-advised because he is surrounded by sycophants determined to tell him what they think he wants to hear. Western foreign policy and strategic analyses all too often prove to be pseudo-psychological speculations on Putin's innermost dreams, fears and ambitions. Ruthless, autocratic and amoral as Putin might be, melodramatic depictions of him as an insane, evil villain, protagonist to courageous, heroic Zelensky, the movie star who became president of Ukraine in fiction before he became President of Ukraine in fact, move us in only one possible direction: escalation, with the hope that the hero will save the day as he always does in the movies. If Putin really is the mad megalomaniac we have been encouraged to believe he is, then we should be showing much greater fear of him than we have so far.</span></span></p></div><div> </div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Are We the centre of the universe?</span></span></h3><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The <i>Globe and Mail</i> article entitled "<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-un-vote-on-russia-ukraine/" target="_blank">UN General Assembly deals Russia overwhelming diplomatic defeat over Ukraine invasion</a>" displayed this map:</span></span></p></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgzpXhrXTDIjQLxV0gt50iCZMfVNDihUFzmAKIntqpmde7BiiKxHNcMq1mGggrM8PraBZ3TG9WXOPqLWK_PgZucGvDEBv_FU3XrxzEqXAxrOa9wVCjBK0xCOht1yYfay6jiVvMb6prew7NaoTfX0602V71DPsOttYluZ4D2kkg4VgIRL3NOY0W_6tzK4Q=s1400" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1030" data-original-width="1400" height="235" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgzpXhrXTDIjQLxV0gt50iCZMfVNDihUFzmAKIntqpmde7BiiKxHNcMq1mGggrM8PraBZ3TG9WXOPqLWK_PgZucGvDEBv_FU3XrxzEqXAxrOa9wVCjBK0xCOht1yYfay6jiVvMb6prew7NaoTfX0602V71DPsOttYluZ4D2kkg4VgIRL3NOY0W_6tzK4Q=s320" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Blue indicates the 141 countries which voted in favour of the resolution condemning the Russian invasion. Red indicates the 5 countries which voted against the resolution. Yellow and grey indicate the 35 countries which abstained and 12 which did not vote, respectively. Considering, as a block,<a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/un-vote-ukraine-russia-countries-abstained-general-assembly-result-resolution-explained-1495346" target="_blank"> the 52 countries which failed to condemn the invasion</a>, including China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan and 17 African countries, a division of the globe between East and West begins to appear. <br /></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJX5ZtOAXJGBR_Ttl8SW3MjfE1jWJbr14B75FBJ_2pySJu4sWDabM3nYINoG-ps3mB-KsiqzZsIr5zqKzbmjD1tvKGyeznPtp8GoaNO0aFyNO4f-qr-VB4FqpfQo644mYrCwAHkYaPZbmUip0po7caeK4I_-umVoDId1NH22Oxxz79Dg10xGaGrWYIKw/s266/shopping.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="1" data-original-height="266" data-original-width="176" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJX5ZtOAXJGBR_Ttl8SW3MjfE1jWJbr14B75FBJ_2pySJu4sWDabM3nYINoG-ps3mB-KsiqzZsIr5zqKzbmjD1tvKGyeznPtp8GoaNO0aFyNO4f-qr-VB4FqpfQo644mYrCwAHkYaPZbmUip0po7caeK4I_-umVoDId1NH22Oxxz79Dg10xGaGrWYIKw/w212-h320/shopping.jpeg" width="212" /></a></div><p> </p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"> Noting this division reminded me of Peter Frankopan's <i>The Silk Roads: A New History of the World</i>. For me, the book was, in fact, a "new history of the world." Throughout my studies and my career as a professor, the world began in Greece, spread to Europe and the UK, and eventually crossed the Atlantic to the USA and Canada--there was barely anything else worth knowing about. Awareness of the East changes the entire world narrative that we call history. Western imaginings that the West is the centre of the world are not unlike that time before Galileo when we thought the Earth was the centre of the universe. Our imaginings are not easy to give up. When the Inquisition showed Galileo the instruments of torture he recanted his claims that the earth and planets revolved around the sun. It would take the Catholic Church 350 years to admit, in 1992, that Galileo was right all along while absolving the Inquisition of any blame for their justified, well-intentioned error.</span></p><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">We, in the West, imagine that "we are the world" at our peril. Without paying much attention, our self-absorption has made enemies and forged alliances against us among countries that have been erstwhile enemies to one another: Russia and China, India and Pakistan, China and India, Iraq and Iran. For much of recorded history, the East (not the West), as Frankopan elaborates, has been the centre of wealth, progress, civilization and empires. It is Western <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism" target="_blank">orientalist</a> folly to imagine that the East can never rise again.</span></span></p></div><div><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The USA sanctions China and Russia at the same time</span></span></h3><div style="text-align: left;"><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4" target="_blank">his 2015 lecture, Meirsheimer</a> argued that the USA would need Russia, as an ally, to compete against the growing power and influence of China. The opposite has, of course, been happening, as the USA practically forces Russia and China to ally with one another by imposing sanctions on both countries at the same time. Only a few short weeks ago, the USA was accusing China of genocide and passed into law the <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">Uyghur Forced Labor Act</a> which, if Border Security Agents enforced the letter of the law, would ban virtually all imports from China. The <a href="https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cusma-aceum/text-texte/toc-tdm.aspx?lang=eng">Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement</a> free trade agreement would compel Canada and Mexico to do the same. (See <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">What if China Isn't Using Forced Labour?</a>) </span></span></p><br /> </div><div><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Joe Biden's recent <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/biden-sotu-transcript.html" target="_blank">State of the Union</a>, which focused on Russia, Ukraine, and NATO adopted a distinctly different tone toward China. In fact, China was only mentioned in the context in the new US infrastructure bill:</span></span></p></div><div><p class="css-g5piaz evys1bk0"></p></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="css-g5piaz evys1bk0"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/biden-sotu-transcript.html" target="_blank">It is going to transform America, to put
us on a path to win the economic competition of the 21st century that we
face with the rest of the world — particularly China.</a></span></span></p><p class="css-g5piaz evys1bk0"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/biden-sotu-transcript.html" target="_blank">I’ve told Xi Jinping, it is never a good bet to bet against the American people.</a></span></span></p></div></blockquote><div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In tone, this <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/biden-sotu-transcript.html" target="_blank">State of the Union</a> downgrades China from "evil empire" to one of many friendly competitors and Xi from an aggressive dictator to a "good ol' boy" confident. </span></span></p></div><div><br /></div><div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">However, as reported in <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/18/bidens-call-with-xi-bilateral-deadlock-00018622" target="_blank">Politico</a>, the more recent two-hour-long call between Xi and Biden indicated that the China-US relationship had turned "<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/18/bidens-call-with-xi-bilateral-deadlock-00018622" target="_blank">profoundly negative</a>." As reported in <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/18/bidens-call-with-xi-bilateral-deadlock-00018622" target="_blank">Politico</a>:</span></span></p></div><div></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/18/bidens-call-with-xi-bilateral-deadlock-00018622" target="_blank">The key U.S. position that Biden articulated in his call with Xi was the
U.S. expectation that China deny any assistance to Putin’s war machine.
Those concerns have been heightened by revelations Friday that EU
leaders are in possession of “</a><a class="js-tealium-tracking" data-tracking="mpos=&mid=&lindex=&lcol=" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/18/bidens-call-with-xi-bilateral-deadlock-00018622" target="_blank">very reliable evidence</a><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/18/bidens-call-with-xi-bilateral-deadlock-00018622" target="_blank">” that China is considering military assistance to Russia. The White House has </a><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/18/bidens-call-with-xi-bilateral-deadlock-00018622" target="_blank">threatened Beijing with sanctions if it agrees to Russia’s request, prompting a sharp rebuke from Xi in the call with Biden. </a></span></span><br /></div><div></div></blockquote><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> Russian Tanks versus a weaponized US dollar</span></span></h3><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Since President Biden has already signed into law a ban on the importation of goods from China, further sanctions would have to be the kind of weaponized financial sanctions that the USA has already imposed on Russia, Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela. Weaponizing the USD (US dollar) against China has been much discussed in recent years. (See <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2021/05/analyzing-discourse-on-china-usa-cold.html" target="_blank">Analyzing the Discourse</a>.) Canadians got a small taste of how that process functions when we were called upon to arrest the Huawei CFO on a charge of bank fraud for allegedly misleading HSBC about Huawei's financial transactions in Iran. The current American weaponization of the dollar against Russia is of such a scale that in addition to claims that it will destroy the Russian economy, it is raising questions about the survival of the USD as the highly privileged global reserve currency.</span></span></p></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In "<a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/ukraine-and-dollar-weaponization/" target="_blank">Ukraine and Dollar Weaponization</a>," George Pearkes writes: "<a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/ukraine-and-dollar-weaponization/" target="_blank">America has responded by threatening Russia with an unconventional weapon: the dollar. However, deploying the dollar may actually undermine its power, and hasten its departure from the US arsenal.</a>" Discussions of how long the USD can remain the global reserve currency and what might happen as it declines have been around for a long time. Historically, six countries--Portugal, Spain, France, Netherlands, Britain and now the USA--have held the coveted status of "global reserve currency" (i.e., being the country which produces the money that other countries must use for international trade). <a href="https://financialpost.com/financial-times/the-dollar-has-had-a-100-year-run-as-the-worlds-reserve-currency-but-a-new-class-of-contenders-is-emerging" target="_blank">On average, countries have maintained the privilege of being the global reserve currency for 94 years</a>. The USD has been the global reserve currency for 101 years. Both the <a href="https://www.thebalance.com/yuan-reserve-currency-to-global-currency-3970465" target="_blank">Chinese yuan</a> and <a href="https://financialpost.com/financial-times/the-dollar-has-had-a-100-year-run-as-the-worlds-reserve-currency-but-a-new-class-of-contenders-is-emerging" target="_blank">Bitcoin </a>have been discussed as candidates to replace the USD as the dominant global reserve currency.</span></span></p></div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What Happens next?</span></span></h3></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">To state the obvious, we have never been here before. Many may predict but no one knows how these never-before-seen variables will play out. For those who might have thought of the "weaponized dollar" as an esoteric myth, the current circumstances make plain that a weaponized dollar is a real-world strategy. The question remains as to how strong and effective a weapon it is. David Frum, in <i>The Atlantic</i>, claims that <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/how-russian-sanctions-work/622940/?utm_source=feed" target="_blank">financial sanctions will cause the collapse of the Russian economy.</a> In the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/biden-sotu-transcript.html" target="_blank">State of the Union</a>, President Biden announced that </span></span></p></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="css-g5piaz evys1bk0"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/biden-sotu-transcript.html" target="_blank">The United States Department of Justice is assembling a dedicated task force to go after the crimes of the Russian oligarchs. We’re joining with European allies to find and seize their yachts, their luxury apartments, their private jets. We are coming for your ill-begotten gains.</a></span></span></blockquote><p></p></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Some commentators have pointed out that the sanctions and seizures might be largely symbolic. Seized yachts, planes and apartments remain the property of the Russian oligarchs until such time as it can be proved in court that they are connected to criminal activity or support for the Ukrainian invasion. Many of the Russian oligarchs are finding sanctuary in Israel which has shown muted support for Ukraine's Jewish president.</span></span></p></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></p></div><div style="text-align: left;"><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Of the states which have been the target of US financial sanctions:</span></span></h3></div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">On Thursday, North Korea launched its l<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/24/asia/north-korea-missile-test-intl-hnk/index.html" target="_blank">argest and longest-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) ever</a></span></span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-washington-pins-easing-venezuela-sanctions-direct-oil-supply-us-2022-03-09/" target="_blank">US representatives are in discussion with Venezuela on lifting sanctions in exchange for oil.</a></span></span> </p></li><li><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Iran continues to develop its nuclear problem and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/agreement-iran-nuclear-deal-neither-imminent-nor-certain-us-state-dept-2022-03-21/" target="_blank">a deal with the USA is "neither imminent nor certain"</a></span></span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPzuB-x9Zm4" target="_blank">Putin has announced that "unfriendly countries" will have to pay for gas in rubles</a>, causing an immediate rise in the value of the ruble. (For elaboration on what this might mean, consider <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/search?q=petrodollar" target="_blank">Petrodollar Warfare</a>.)</span></span></p></li><li><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Cuba blames the USA for the Ukrainian crisis. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russia-ally-cuba-slams-us-over-ukraine-crisis-urges-diplomacy-2022-02-23/" target="_blank">Russia agrees to postpone debt payments owed to it by Cuba until 2027. Cuba's foreign ministry said last week the two countries would deepen ties
and explore collaboration in transportation, energy, industry and
banking . . . . .</a></span></span></p></li></ul><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Can an Agreement on Ukrainian Neutrality End the War?</span></span></h3><div style="text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In recent days, President Zelensky has announced that Ukraine will not join NATO. Ezra Klein cites this fact as evidence that NATO expansion was not the cause of the invasion. History has proven over and over again that wars are easier to start than to end. For those who embrace a melodramatic vision of the war in Ukraine, Zelensky's declaration might seem a setback for the hero and a victory for the villain, but it is also a step toward ending the war without escalating the destruction and bloodshed. At least one of Putin's claimed justifications for the invasion has been removed. We might ask why it took twenty days of warfare to get to this point. Putin's other conditions, sovereignty over Crimea, which he has held since 2014 and is dominantly Russian in terms of ethnicity and language, and the lifting of sanctions, seem not unreasonable concessions compared to the risk of a nuclear war. It might grate that we would be rewarding Putin's bad behaviour but this isn't kindergarten; it's the real world with lives at stake.</span></span></p></div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Interviewed on "Going Underground," John Bolton claimed that Putin's real interest in Ukraine is the eastern and southern provinces--sites of the Ukrainian civil war and ports on the Black Sea, respectively. (I cannot link to the interview because internet access to <i>Russia Today</i> is now being blocked.) The hard negotiations will likely centre on these territories. </span></span></p></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Russian forces overrunning Ukraine sites where the USA has established bio-weapons labs have sparked new areas of concern. The claims of US bio-weapons labs in Ukraine have been broadly dismissed, but <a href="https://systemupdate.substack.com/p/video-transcript-the-white-houses?s=r" target="_blank">Glenn Greenwald offers a convincing argument </a>that such facilities do exist even as US officials manage to deny their existence. However unsavoury and unpalatable a negotiated peace might seem, it pales in comparison to the alternatives. Consider: What would a Ukrainian victory look like? What would a Russian victory look like? In the end, there isn't much difference between the two: everyone loses in a lengthy war of attrition--likely lasting longer than the major players will be alive--guaranteeing more destruction and loss of life, and the potential escalation and expansion of the war beyond any measurable limit. </span></span></p></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p></div><div style="text-align: left;"><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></p></div></div></div>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-72426085803753706322022-02-14T10:40:00.002-08:002022-02-14T11:17:08.461-08:00A Canadian Army Officer Is Openly Guilty of Mutiny and Sedition: How Does the Media, the Military and the Government React?<p> Listening to a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8ZRipbeRo" target="_blank">Speech by Canadian Army Major Stephen Chledowski</a> on Youtube, my first reaction was "<i>This can't be real!</i>" Scanning various media reports, I confirmed that Stephen Chledowski is, in fact, an active military officer and he has not denied or recanted the content of the video recording of his speech. Chledowski is openly guilty of mutiny and sedition. Under military law, a recommended punishment is life in prison, yet everyone I have read reacting to his speech--online commentators, military spokesperson, reporters, etc--implies that he is likely to receive a slap on the wrist. Have we all become so removed from reality and the law?</p><p>Dear readers, I don't think I can pare this down to make it more easily digestible. It's pretty straightforward. Here are the relevant sections of the military Code of Service Discipline, <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-7.html#h-375432" target="_blank">Part III of the National Defence Act</a>. Read the law; then listen to<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8ZRipbeRo" target="_blank"> Chledowski's speech</a>. My interpretation is that a major in the Canadian forces is inciting his fellow soldiers and the police of Canada to overthrow the Government of Canada. I'm not trying to express an opinion or make a recommendation here. Here is the evidence (the video linked above) and here (below) is the law: Please tell me what I'm missing.</p><h4 class="Subheading" id="h-375432" style="border-bottom-style: none; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.1; margin-bottom: 0.7em; margin-top: 0.7em;" tabindex="-1"><span class="HTitleText3" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: block; font-size: 15pt; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px;">Mutiny</span></h4><p class="MarginalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold; margin: 1.2em 0px 0.7em;"><span class="wb-invisible" style="box-sizing: border-box; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px); height: 1px; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; width: 1px;">Marginal note:</span>Mutiny with violence</p><p class="Section" id="375433" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0.7em 0px 0.5em;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="sectionLabel" id="s-79" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: inherit;"><span class="sectionLabel" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">79</span></a></b> Every person who joins in a mutiny that is accompanied by violence is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment.</p><div class="HistoricalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><ul class="HistoricalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li class="HistoricalNoteSubItem" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; padding-right: 0.5em;">R.S., 1985, c. N-5, s. 79</li><li class="HistoricalNoteSubItem" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; padding-right: 0.5em;">1998, c. 35, s. 28</li></ul></div><p class="MarginalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold; margin: 1.2em 0px 0.7em;"><span class="wb-invisible" style="box-sizing: border-box; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px); height: 1px; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; width: 1px;">Marginal note:</span>Mutiny without violence</p><p class="Section" id="375437" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0.7em 0px 0.5em;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="sectionLabel" id="s-80" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: inherit;"><span class="sectionLabel" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">80</span></a></b> Every person who joins in a mutiny that is not accompanied by violence is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or to less punishment or, in the case of a ringleader of the mutiny, to imprisonment for life or to less punishment.</p><div class="HistoricalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><ul class="HistoricalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li class="HistoricalNoteSubItem" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; padding-right: 0.5em;">R.S., 1985, c. N-5, s. 80</li><li class="HistoricalNoteSubItem" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; padding-right: 0.5em;">1998, c. 35, s. 28</li></ul></div><p class="MarginalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold; margin: 1.2em 0px 0.7em;"><span class="wb-invisible" style="box-sizing: border-box; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px); height: 1px; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; width: 1px;">Marginal note:</span>Offences related to mutiny</p><p class="Section" id="375441" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0.7em 0px 0.5em;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="sectionLabel" id="s-81" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: inherit;"><span class="sectionLabel" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">81</span></a></b> Every person who</p><ul class="ProvisionList" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="Paragraph" id="375443" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.7em 0px 0.5em 1.5em;"><span class="lawlabel" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-weight: bold;">(a)</span> causes or conspires with any other person to cause a mutiny,</p></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="Paragraph" id="375444" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.7em 0px 0.5em 1.5em;"><span class="lawlabel" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-weight: bold;">(b)</span> endeavours to persuade any person to join in a mutiny,</p></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="Paragraph" id="375445" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.7em 0px 0.5em 1.5em;"><span class="lawlabel" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-weight: bold;">(c)</span> being present, does not use his utmost endeavours to suppress a mutiny, or</p></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="Paragraph" id="375446" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.7em 0px 0.5em 1.5em;"><span class="lawlabel" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-weight: bold;">(d)</span> being aware of an actual or intended mutiny, does not without delay inform his superior officer thereof,</p></li></ul><p class="ContinuedSectionSubsection" id="375447" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0.7em 0px 0.5em;">is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment.</p><div class="HistoricalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><ul class="HistoricalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li class="HistoricalNoteSubItem" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; padding-right: 0.5em;">R.S., c. N-4, s. 71</li></ul></div><h4 class="Subheading" id="h-375450" style="border-bottom-style: none; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.1; margin-bottom: 0.7em; margin-top: 0.7em;"><span class="HTitleText3" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: block; font-size: 15pt; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px;">Seditious Offences</span></h4><p class="MarginalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold; margin: 1.2em 0px 0.7em;"><span class="wb-invisible" style="box-sizing: border-box; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px); height: 1px; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; width: 1px;">Marginal note:</span>Advocating governmental change by force</p><p class="Section" id="375451" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0.7em 0px 0.5em;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="sectionLabel" id="s-82" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: inherit;"><span class="sectionLabel" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">82</span></a></b> Every person who publishes or circulates any writing, printing or document in which is advocated, or who teaches or advocates, the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing any governmental change within Canada is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment.</p><div class="HistoricalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><ul class="HistoricalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li class="HistoricalNoteSubItem" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; padding-right: 0.5em;">R.S., c. N-4, s. 72</li></ul></div><h4 class="Subheading" id="h-375455" style="border-bottom-style: none; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.1; margin-bottom: 0.7em; margin-top: 0.7em;"><span class="HTitleText3" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: block; font-size: 15pt; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px;">Insubordination</span></h4><p class="MarginalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold; margin: 1.2em 0px 0.7em;"><span class="wb-invisible" style="box-sizing: border-box; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px); height: 1px; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; width: 1px;">Marginal note:</span>Disobedience of lawful command</p><p class="Section" id="375456" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0.7em 0px 0.5em;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="sectionLabel" id="s-83" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: inherit;"><span class="sectionLabel" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">83</span></a></b> Every person who disobeys a lawful command of a superior officer is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment.</p><div class="HistoricalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><ul class="HistoricalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li class="HistoricalNoteSubItem" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; padding-right: 0.5em;">R.S., c. N-4, s. 73</li></ul></div><p class="MarginalNote" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold; margin: 1.2em 0px 0.7em;"><span class="wb-invisible" style="box-sizing: border-box; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px); height: 1px; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; width: 1px;">Marginal note:</span></p><p><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2855832589372200011.post-87978203990905637802022-02-08T08:12:00.002-08:002022-02-26T05:00:51.619-08:00What if China Isn't Using Forced Labour?<h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Poor Saddam Hussein!</span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">I can't bring myself to sympathize with Saddam Hussein, but still, I think about the lead-up to the second Iraq war (which, by the way, cost <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War" target="_blank">151,000 to 1,033,000 lives--depending on whose statistics you believe</a>). Over and over again, in anticipation of the 2003 invasion, we were told that all Saddam had to do was turn over his "weapons of mass destruction." Imagine Saddam's frustration! He couldn't halt the invasion by turning over his weapons of mass destruction because he didn't have any. Just saying he had no WMDs wasn't going to do anything because the US had the witness statements of Iraqi defectors, CIA intelligence reports, recordings and leaked documents, and, of course, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/18/colin-powell-un-security-council-iraq" target="_blank">the satellite images which Colin Powell presented to the UN.</a></span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Here We go again!</span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">I've read the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ78/PLAW-117publ78.pdf" target="_blank">Uyghur Forced Labor Act</a> and its earlier drafts, the <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/fletf_-_establishing_timelines_congressional_report.pdf" target="_blank">Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force "Report to Congress,"</a> and the <a href="https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cusma-aceum/text-texte/toc-tdm.aspx?lang=eng" target="_blank">Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement</a> (aka USMC Implementation Act) in an effort to figure out what's really going on. According to the draft <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1155/text" target="_blank">Act approved by Congress</a>, the USA knows that China is using forced labour in Xinjiang because they have witness statements, "<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1155/text" target="_blank">official media reports, publicly available documents, official statements, and official leaked documents from the Government of the People’s Republic of China</a>" and, wait for it . . . "<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1155/text" target="_blank">satellite imagery</a>." Of the reports, articles, documents and statements I've read, some assert that <a href="https://spectatorworld.com/topic/china-new-evil-empire/" target="_blank">"China is the new evil empire"</a> but none provide conclusive evidence of "forced labour." Of all the human rights abuses the Chinese regime is being accused of--mass incarceration without trial, repression of free speech and religion, coercive family planning, forced assimilation, invasive surveillance--the least evident and most difficult to prove would be "forced labour."</span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Satellite Imagery</span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The <a href="https://www.aspi.org.au" target="_blank">Australia Strategic Policy Institute</a> (ASPI) has taken the lead in providing <a href="https://xjdp.aspi.org.au/map/?" target="_blank">satellite imagery of Xinjiang.</a> The ASPI describes itself as "an independent, non-partisan think tank" but is equally forthcoming that <a href="https://www.aspi.org.au/about-aspi/funding" target="_blank">most of its funding comes from Australia's Department of Defence and other government agencies</a>. Australia is of course a member of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes" target="_blank">Five Eyes intelligence alliance</a> and has recently reinforced its allegiance with the USA in opposition to China. </span></p><div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhMXN97JIGFsTxMHL0GXVdUSPiYcf5dE43pCdyq3jSysOqtYNapgOoJKJqV6kH_UY9UgZQXPQdzQM7vyKXj-yFa0EGB4BLOs1CC9qFJWXRY26J4zCURtuX-nRY48H4LoL1fFK7MeOhnqIr8yCUIDg_3K8qH_GlOhZ0tDK0Xy_wkuodZf7EbLAU6FSnDIg=s1437" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="739" data-original-width="1437" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhMXN97JIGFsTxMHL0GXVdUSPiYcf5dE43pCdyq3jSysOqtYNapgOoJKJqV6kH_UY9UgZQXPQdzQM7vyKXj-yFa0EGB4BLOs1CC9qFJWXRY26J4zCURtuX-nRY48H4LoL1fFK7MeOhnqIr8yCUIDg_3K8qH_GlOhZ0tDK0Xy_wkuodZf7EbLAU6FSnDIg=w640-h330" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="section"><br /></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The <a href="https://xjdp.aspi.org.au/map/?" target="_blank">ASPI's interactive map</a>, indicating images of hundreds of detention centres, mosques and religious sites, still requires a leap of faith that what we are looking at--buildings with walls, turrets and fences--are in fact prisons, detention centres and re-education facilities whose inmates are used for forced labour. The same suspension of disbelief that Collin Powell invoked when he showed satellite images of buildings in Iraq and told the UN that they were production and storage facilities for "weapons of mass destruction" is once again being called for.</span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">What's really going on?</span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Just as "weapons of mass destruction" provided the pretext for the war in Iraq when the protection of western oil interests was widely believed to be the more credible and obvious cause, this time "forced labor" is being used as an excuse to escalate the USA's geopolitical contest with China. Of all the crimes that the USA might accuse China of, why focus on "forced labor"? China has a history of moving its workforce from one part of the country to another, separating families for long periods of time. Arguably, "forced labour" has been part of Chinese culture for thousands of years. Why has Chinese "forced labor" become a US obsession in 2021-22? How do you prove "forced labor" from thousands of miles away?</span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Rebuttable Presumption</span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The <a href="https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ78/PLAW-117publ78.pdf" target="_blank">Uyghur Forced Labor Act</a> provides a simple solution in Section <a href="https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ78/PLAW-117publ78.pdf" target="_blank">3: "REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION."</a> "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuttable_presumption" target="_blank">Rebuttable presumption</a>," a concept in law that, in the simplest of terms, means guilty until proven innocent. Therefore, the US government is instructing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assume that anything being imported from China is the product of forced labour until proven otherwise.</span> </p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">What if China isn't using forced labour?</span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">What if China isn't using forced labour? It really doesn't matter. What is or isn't accepted into the USA will be determined through negotiations between CBP (and various other US intelligence services) and the American company doing the importing. Contrary to my claim in <a href="http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2022/02/weaponizing-human-rights.html" target="_blank">the previous post</a>, Walmart will no doubt lobby for an exemption. As outlined in the <i>New York Times</i> article, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/us/politics/china-uyghurs-forced-labor.html?searchResultPosition=3" target="_blank">"U.S. Effort to Combat Forced Labor Targets Corporate China Ties,"</a> Coke Cola, Nike and Apple have already begun lobbying.</span></p><div class="section"><div class="page" title="Page 7"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The Tariff Act of 1930</span></h3></div></div></div></div></div><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Oh my naivety! You may not have detected it but, in my previous posts, I was struck by how quickly and easily American legislators seemed to accept claims of genocide and human rights abuses without challenging the sources or questioning the substance of the evidence. I was confounded by the fact that US legislators focused on "forced labor," the most difficult accusation to prove, rather than any other of claimed abuses. I was unaware of the <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/fletf_-_establishing_timelines_congressional_report.pdf" target="_blank">Tariff Act of 1930 and its recent amendments</a>. It is perhaps worth noting that until 2016, US law . . .</span></p><p></p><blockquote><a href="https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/fletf_-_establishing_timelines_congressional_report.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">permitted the importation of goods made by forced labor “if the goods were not produced in such quantities in the United States as to meet the consumptive demands of the United States.”</span></a></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">US legislators honed in on "forced labor" because the recently amended law was already on the books, in international and US law, against "forced labor." This was the approach that would allow them to block, on a fairly ad hoc basis, any and all imports from China. A law designed to protect against child labour, human trafficking, sexual exploitation and slave labour is being used to block the advancement of a global competitor. </span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Is Canada going to be played again?</span></h3><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Article 3 of the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ78/PLAW-117publ78.pdf" target="_blank">Uyghur Forced Labor Act</a> requires the US government . . . </span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">(3) to coordinate with Mexico and Canada to effectively implement Article 23.6 of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement to prohibit the importation of goods produced in whole or in part by forced or compulsory labor, including those goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region;</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Did US negotiators anticipate in the summer of 2020 when the USMC trade agreement was being signed and Canada had accepted "the China clause" barring a Canada-China free-trade deal without notifying the US, and Canada had accepted the US request to arrest Meng Wanzhou, the Huawei CFO, further driving a wedge between Canada and China, that they also had Article 23.6, an ace up the US sleeve, to further prevent trade between Canada and China? Will the Canadian government respond to the <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">Uyghur Forced Labor Act</a> and Article 23.6 of USMC, the same way they did the US-Canada Extradition Treaty in the Meng case? Will we once again find ourselves in a trade war with China to the detriment of Canada for the benefit of the USA? And the answer is . . .</span></p><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="caret-color: rgb(42, 42, 42); color: #2a2a2a;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">It's a Done deal</span></span></h3><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">According to the <a href="https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20210625/10-en.aspx" target="_blank">Government of Canada website entitled "Public Safety,"</a> the ban on "forced labour" imports became law in Canada two years ago.</span></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; margin: 0px 0px 11.5px;"></p><blockquote><a href="https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20210625/10-en.aspx" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Canada has imposed an importation ban on goods that were produced by forced labour, as described in <i style="box-sizing: border-box;">An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States</i>, which received Royal Assent on March 13, 2020. As described in paragraph 202(8), Chapter 98 item No. 9897.00.00 of the <i style="box-sizing: border-box;">Customs Tariff</i>, the law has been amended to include a reference prohibiting goods mined, manufactured or produced wholly or in part by forced labour. These amendments made under the Act came into force in Canada on July 1, 2020, as outlined in CBSA Customs Notice 20-23, Import prohibition on goods produced wholly or in part by forced labour.</span></a></blockquote><p></p><p><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /></p>Jay Sour, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15820570825725679971noreply@blogger.com0