My View of the World Today

Syria

I have this vision of Syria at the end of their current civil war.  I see a field stretching out forever. This field is filled with destroyed buildings and dead bodies; human bodies that stretch to the horizon.  Standing atop a mound of these bodies are two men, Bashar Al-Assad and Vladimir Putin.  They are shaking hands and smiling.  Above them stands a banner that says, “Mission Accomplished!”  There is no question that Syria will end up a destroyed country with a leader who is inexorably tied to Russia.  I know that this I a very dystopian view of things, but can you imagine any other outcome?

Some editorial writers have decried the west’s reaction to the war in Syria.  Maybe if we had done something right at the beginning in 2011 things could have turned out differently.  But it was the season of the “Arab Spring” and we were actively or tacitly supporting the efforts of “friendly” rebels to overthrow dictatorial regimes.  As it turned out, only one of those movements had any successful impact.  The others either returned new dictators or devolved into bloody civil wars.  This ongoing war in Syria is the result.  Once Russia stepped in to support Mr. Al-Assad, it left very little room for the west to manoeuvre. The “pin prick” attack, as one commentator described last week’s missile attack by the U.S., Britain and France, was maybe as far as we can go and avoid a serious clash with Russia.  Russia has a way of carrying out proxy wars in someone else’s territory.  For the west to introduce thousands of troops, for that is what it would take to play a meaningful roll, would open a whole new can of worms to the area.  That region has already seen long, drawn-out encounters in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Do we want more of the same?  And who would we be fighting?  Certainly not just the Assad regime but several of the many factions already fighting in the country.  Whose side would we take, for example, between the Kurds, who have been the west’s ally, and the Turks, our partner in NATO?

If I had an answer to this dilemma I would voice it loud and clear, but I don’t.  And neither, it appears, has anyone else.  Even those editorial writers have only accusations, never suggestions.

Canada

Pipelines seem to be the topic of the last couple of weeks as controversy over the Trans-Mountain continue in the headlines.  The dispute between Alberta and British Columbia calls into question the varying interests between provinces.  That story, and another small one in the papers about the Supreme Court’s decision that provinces have a right to limit how much alcohol can be transported between provinces, begs the question of the integrity of Confederation.  Are we one country or thirteen individual fiefdoms only held together by the money that is dole out to the provinces by the federal government? One must wonder.  If British Columbia can block a national program what else can provinces do to other provinces or the country as a whole?  We have already seen the same thing when the actions of Quebec essentially sounded the death knell of the Energy East pipeline.  This pipeline would have benefited many people, particularly the Maritime Provinces who could have weened themselves off their dependency on foreign oil.  This program would have made sense for all of Canada.  If provinces can make laws that contravene national laws and can convince the Supreme Court of their right to do so, then it’s time to put up border crossings between every province and territory.