Black Mountains

Montenegro, land named after its most poignant landscape declared independence last week. It was a bold move, but one that has been in the works for several years and considering the volatility of the region, a most important step in its history.
 
Montenegro offers outsiders, like myself, a glimpse of what the whole region could become, self sufficient.  It has come about in a peaceful manner, for the most part, but could also stand as an example to the rest of the "Balkans" because of its linguistic and cultural mix. Montenegro consists of Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and Albanians. It has a cultural and religious blend that gives it strength and a declaration of independence, says much about the consensus of the country, politically speaking.
 
But I can't help but think that the region once known as Yugoslavia, is still suffering from the Marshall Tito legacy. He led the country from 1945 to 1980. When he died, the regions who were once cooperative, suddenly saw themselves as enemies and the ensuing civil wars achieved nothing except a huge body count. But with that initial anger and loss of leadership out of the picture, the region has finally settled down. I don't think Montenegro would be celebrating independence today, if Tito was still around. He was the glue to the entire region, at least to outsiders, only because of his longevity and his "soft" Communist approach to leadership. Tito was popular because he did the one thing many could not do and that was stand up to Hitler during WW II. Most Yugoslavs had a higher standard of living than East Europeans in the aftermath.
 
Twenty six years after his death, the region had to come to terms with itself, rightly or wrongly. Montenegro's independence seems to put the region's history into its proper perspective, at least as it was before 1918.
 
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

90 Seconds on Afghanistan

Nothing like a flag-draped coffin to remind one of the futility of war. And so it was this past week as Canada’s first female soldier died during battle in Afghanistan. Ironically, it was on the same day as our MPs were discussing the merits of keeping soldiers there for another couple of years.

Stephen “Hard-Ass” Harper enforced the debate with the caveat that he would call an election if he didn’t get his way. This agressive move, full of political expediancy, scared the heck out of the Bloc Quebecois, a party not prepared to return to the polls after January’s slap in the face. Debate, if you want to call it that, was limited to 6 hours in the House of Commons. That’s about 90 seconds per MP. [only 294 voted] It was merely lip service of the very worst kind and not a very democratic way of having an intelligent discussion about Canada’s committment in a foreign land. The carrot was the offer of leading the NATO mission in 2008.

Quite frankly this move was merely a power-play by the Prime Minister to shrink the process and therefore restrict any serious debate. What can one say on an important issue in less than 90 seconds? Well, considering the notion of sound bites, you could do pretty well, but end up saying nothing. Another approach: stand in the House and say nothing for 90 seconds. Perhaps hold a peace sign over your head or tell the story of one of our fallen soldiers.

Canada does not need to be in Afghanistan. And while we get positive information about our mission there and the many people that have been helped, it’s basically a battle of diminishing returns. The tribal network that is Afghanistan isn’t going to change for anybody, no matter how often we use the word “democracy” as a way of life.

It is truly a waste of time, money and effort.

I think my 90 seconds is up.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Stacks and Stacks of Letters

The 21st Century has brought us quick and immediate forms of communication, most of which are not on paper. Last week a personal letter made headline news. It was from the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad and it was addressed to the President of the United States. [It’s nice to know that the old formats still hold some clout in the world]

The letter, which was 18 pages long, was probably not completely read by its recipient. [Bush suffers from a form of ADD]. It posed a series of direct questions to Bush, including, “How can your [military] actions be reconciled with the values...and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ?” Ahmadi-Nejad was making a direct connection between the religious beliefs of the President and the aggressive and violent actions of his government. He was also attempting to understand Bush’s actions regarding WMD in Iran. He also questions the history of Israel and the involvement of the US in the creation of that state. The letter also offers another important question “Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle east region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations?”

Let’s consider the geographic location of Iran: it is surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons. To the north, Russia. To the east, China, Pakistan and India. To the south, Israel. So why can’t Iran have the same destructive toys to play with? The nuclear pissing contest between Iran and the United States is futile and one that could get us all killed if the Bush Gang lets loose and invades or bombs Iran.

Ahmadi-Nejad’s letter asks some hard questions and offers an alternative way of thinking. It is an important first step in diplomacy.

Clearly, George W. Bush needs to read his mail and write back soon.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

The entire letter can be found here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5393215

General Gordon to the Rescue

In 1966 a major historical movie called Khartoum was released. It was the story of General Charles Gordon, played by Charlton Heston, a British officer responsible for bringing stability to Sudan. His job: to defeat the Muslim army of Mohammed Ahmed el Mahdi, played by Laurence Olivier. Mahdi was leading his own Jihad against the British army. The film was a classic epic adventure for the Colonial period; great costumes, grandiose wide shots of battles featuring heroism of a sort that most audiences would like, cinematically speaking.
 
After trying to negotiate a settlement, the story advances with true religious zeal as the powerful Christian forces of Gordon take on the “fanatical” muslim forces and lose. The British government set Gordon up to fail because it’s easier to sacrifice one man than a whole nation to battle, expecially if you’re an Imperial power with resistance at home.
 
Forty years after its release, Khartoum echoes the current strife in Sudan, particularly in the Darfur region. Thousands of people have been displaced, the food is scarce and supplies are difficult to deliver because the military forces are engaged. Five major tribes are at war. In Darfur, its a matter of who lives there: Sudanese or Egyptian. Only 39% of the country is Egyptian and the growth of Christians in the south makes up 52% of Sudan.

The central message in Khartoum is that without clear policies, foreign affairs are destined for messy and tragic wars without honour or purpose. The existing state of affairs in the Darfur region appear to be a little better. Peace talks continue but perhaps we need that one, lone soldier ready to sacrifice his or her life for the greater cause.

Any volunteers?

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.