Monthly Archives: April 2017

Russia must withdraw its support for the murderous regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. That was the tough but easy position to take for Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland.

She was climbing aboard the loud and vociferous public opinion bandwagon following the chemical weapons attack by Damascus. More important, with high-stakes economic issues on the table with Washington, she was taking advantage of another opportunity for Ottawa to be onside with the Donald Trump administration.

Many desire regime change in Syria, but what kind of regime to change it to is of course the hellish question. Its a question no one, including Barack Obama or Justin Trudeau, has wanted to answer given a brutal array of possibilities that include an ISIS-beholden government. Another consideration is precedent. Western-enforced regime change didnt exactly work wonders in Libya or Iraq.

Rules of war are strange. Whats worse? Being killed by poison gas or blown to pieces by bombs and cruise missiles? But Mr. al-Assad crossed the line, dramatically heightening stakes with Russia and the United States in the process. In moving to a position that Mr. al-Assad must go, the Trump administration will look inexcusably feeble if it doesnt follow up. It would be aping the Obama administration, whose biggest failing on foreign policy was breaking its pledge to move against Mr. al-Assad if he used chemical weapons.

As for Russian President Vladimir Putin, now that hes ensconced in Damascus, is he one to retreat? The record hardly suggests it. He has many strategic interests in Syria: A naval installation, an air force base, potential energy resources, a base for combatting terrorism. As well, his presence in Syria makes him a more important player in the Middle East.

More significant is that his fortunes are staked on making Russia proud and strong again and it is through his muscle-flexing in foreign affairs that he has given the impression to his people that he is doing it. He cant quit Syria. He cant quit Ukraine. He has to continue to punch above his weight. It deflects from the penury at home where deflated oil prices flatten economic hopes.

Its about the pride of his pride. One thing that struck me about Russians in three years spent there in Soviet times was not only the degree to which they were subjugated but, antithetically, their intrinsic sense of pride. It was attributable to size, the massive land, the reach of empire, the military might, the defeat at such horrendous cost of Hitlers Germany. If they were downtrodden they still held to be being part of something strong, powerful.

Id come to Moscow following a few years in Washington, where making the people feel proud was what Ronald Reagan did after the perceived downsizing of America under Jimmy Carter. Following the reticent rationalism of Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump now uses what distortions he can find to cast himself as the author of a return to greatness for his country. In the Trump foreign policy shop, traditionalists and cold-warrior types such as H.R. McMaster, his national security adviser, are gaining the upper hand. It is welcome news given the helter-skelter approach of a president who operates with an alarming knowledge deficit.

In any new big power clash, Ms. Freeland, whose animosity toward Mr. Putin knows few bounds, would like to see Canada play more than a role of bystander. Pierre Trudeau was a contrarian who sought to have a disproportionate influence in the Cold War. But Justin Trudeau does not possess his fathers prickly outsider streak and is too much the new kid on the block to start throwing his weight around.

There is also a wild card in the deck that makes policy planning by Ottawa or anyone highly hazardous. The controversy over Russian interference in the U.S. election with the possible collusion of Trump associates could turn out to be inconsequential. It could also turn out to be momentous.

The one constant in the mix is Mr. Putin and his old-school Soviet-like expansionist designs. All that talk of a Trump rapprochement with him is now improbable.

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeDebate

See the rest here:

Why a tough-talking Trump won't faze Putin - The Globe and Mail

Charlie Hewitt,Lennox Head.

Touting economic benefits as the justification for a 14-storey-high ski jump on the dunes at Lennox Head is nonsensical and offensive. Spend $10m on a small handful of elite athletes in an obscure sport who might occasionally buy food and accommodation for a few months of the year.

In return our community suffers a huge permanent eyesore that despoils natural assets that attract thousands of paying tourists all year; intensifies development in the catchment of a fragile coastal lake; and is severely exposed to coastal erosion hazard, corrosive salt air, highly brackish groundwater, and persistent strong coastal winds.

Furthermore, it is contemptuous to spout economic platitudes without presenting figures. On that note, it might be easier to spend the $10m on raising the Lismore flood levee or local employment training no need to massage those numbers to demonstrate economic benefit.

This ski jump was fully approved and funded in Queensland in 2011. If the numbers are so rosy, why did Campbell Newman, that proud bastion of economic rationalism, scrap it immediately on coming to power?

NSW Sport is trying to foist Queenslands rejects on our community. Despite owning this wonderful facility on a prime piece of coastal land for years, NSW Sport are so inept that they still record unacceptable losses there. So they lunged at this abandoned project in a desperate and unimaginative attempt to justify their continued management of the site.

Yes, so inept they recently had to back-pedal desperately when photomontages of this monstrosity were met with dismay and derision. Of course the images were checked and approved for release, but NSW Sport lied about misinformation being spread and doctored the images for re-release it now looks monstrous from far away and they look deceitful close up.

Finally, expect but dont fall for a blackmail attempt from NSW Sport like If you block this, well just sell the land to developers. There are countless ways this prime piece of coastal land could be used, with positive economic and social returns, in the hands of competent creative managers.

Maintain the rage, Lennox.

See the original post:

14-storey Lennox ski jump a blight - Echonetdaily

BBC Broadcasting House in central London. The BBC and others have swallowed whole a narrative of secularism, writes the Revd Canon Bruce Saunders. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA

Thank you for your editorial (Religious literacy helps us to understand our secular selves, 8 April). The secularisation narrative that humanity is no longer ignorant, fearful and living in an enchanted world, but has now come of age, is rational, scientific and does not need religious faith seems to have been swallowed whole by those, like the BBC and many political and cultural policymakers, who claim to reflect opinion while actually forming and propagating it. This secularisation story is simplistic, unfounded on the evidence of the vitality of contemporary world religious faith, and fails to take account of the way religious faith has itself evolved, frequently welcoming theinsights of rationalism and science.

Your article warns against assuming that the values of the liberal, secularist west are self-evident. We do not need to look too far back in history to see how quickly a liberal consensus, assumed to be self-evident, can be subverted by a political rhetoric that appeals to human greed, fear or grievance. With nations today building walls and closing borders, pragmatism easily replaces the values of generosity and community if we lose the religious literacy that reminds us of the sources that nourish and sustain our values. The Revd Canon Bruce Saunders Bristol

Your editorial on religious broadcasting displays the Guardians traditionally uncritical approach to religion. There is a variety of reasons why the BBC should pay attention to religion. One is that religion underlies much of politics today, from Islamic State through cows in India and murdered secularists in Bangladesh to President Trumps disastrous ban on aid for any organisation even mentioning abortion to women in distress, and his backing for an extreme religious line in recent UN conferences on women and on development, to the dismay of most European governments. When religion presents itself as just apparent facts it can be dangerous, and that calls not just for religious literacy, but analysis and critique of religious positions. This is entirely different from the BBCs duty toreflect the nation to itself.

As long as there is an adequate audience for Songs of Praise or the radio morning service they should continue. But by the same argument the BBC should reflect the non-religious philosophy of the flourishing humanist movement in Britain today yet you made no mention of its refusal to allow humanists to explain their approach to life or even to present Thought for the Day. David Pollock London

Although I agree with the headline, Idont think Simon Jenkins article (The best way to tackle BBC bias is to make it plain to see, 6 April) sheds much light on the debate. The idea that the BBC is palpably left of centre is belied by the almost zero coverage given to the anti-austerity position during the five years of the coalition government, for example. It may well be left-liberal socially, but it is far from the left economically.

And while the Reality Check page during the referendum debate was admirable in intention, there was still a failure within it and across BBC programming to provide citizens with aconsistent and informative map of the different positions and the possible outcomes. What is more, the habitual adversarial exchanges that Jenkins extols rarely meet the standards of rigorous Socratic debate; frequently terms are not defined, ideologies are not named, arguments are not developed, conclusions are not crystallised. I suggest that the way forward for our public broadcaster, if it wants to be impartial, is to support good policymaking and informed voting through mapping all of the positions and arguments, clarifying how prevalent each one is, and illuminating the underlying assumptions, values and ideologies of each of its proponents. Nick Nuttgens Sheffield

John Shield (Letters, 8 April) seems to think that impartiality and fairness mean sitting on the fence, which is rather in conflict with the BBCs own mission statement to provide programmes and services that inform and educate.

We have been here before. For years in any global warming news item the BBC would give equal platform to climate change deniers, despite the overwhelming evidence and scientific opinion to the contrary. It has had a material impact on addressing the causes of climate change. Similarly, in the EU referendum the BBC chose to simply give equal platform to both sides as they presented their false claims to voters. Pete Foster Devizes, Wiltshire

I totally disagree with Simon Jenkins re bias at the BBC. Bias towards what? Towards being genuine and caring, for down-to-earth decency, for kindness, for being on the side of the decent middle-of-the-road viewer?

I have always felt comfortable and safe with the BBCs journalism, interviewers and commentaries. In this era of uncertainty, even fear, and clashes of opinion which reflect something almost sinister in the background, it is reassuring to hear the voice of the BBC and feel a comfort. No strident fascism, no hard right either. The BBC just gets it right. Margaret Reading Swadlincote, Derbyshire

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

Here is the original post:

The BBC's duty to followers of all faiths and none - The Guardian