Harper - For Real

I am an idealist. I believe the world would work better if everyone just got along. However, I am not running a country. There are issues in the world that would beat down any optimist or idealist, and one of them is the maternal and infant mortality rate in developing countries.

It is estimated that more than 500 000 mothers die in childbirth each year, and maternal mortality rates are dangerously high in places like Afghanistan. Further statistics are horrifying, and we in North American have no concept of the dangers of childbirth without the proper health-care facilities. Now that PM Harper has decided to make this one of the items on the G8 agenda, the question of why he has done so has been raised.

Harper is emphasizing keeping promises made in the past rather than trying to make new ones. It is being said that the problem of deaths from childbirth can be drastically reduced with little financial demand, as the solution is simple: provide adequate health-care facilities to mothers and infants.

While this sounds like a simple solution, Canada has been known to shy away from financial commitments in the past. Perhaps the best example is the failure to meet our commitment to donate 0.7% of our GDP to foreign aid, which would include setting up adequate health-care in developing countries.

The implication that Harper is a realist means he did not bring this issue up because he believed a solution must finally be presented, or because he felt he should take on the responsibility of using his power to draw attention to those who need help. If he is a realist, he is diving into this issue for reasons not pertaining to simple good will. Why, then, is he doing it?

Perhaps he wants to divert attention from Canada’s own shoddy promise-keeping. It would distract the international community from the fact that we are in the same position as everyone else, and need to shape up. While everyone is worrying about honouring their own commitments, the fact that the G8 host country is also worried will slip by.

Perhaps he knows that as much as Canada may want to spearhead this operation, there is no way we could do it alone. No country could solve this problem alone, just as no country can solve world hunger alone, or provide the world with clean drinking water. Canada, as aforementioned, cannot even part with 0.7% of its GDP each year. How would we improve global health-care on our own?

If Harper was an idealist he would be doing this out of the goodness of his heart – but he is a realist, and he knows that Canada can merely narrow the direction of the project and still receive credit for it, even if, in the final picture, we play only a mediocre part. He also knows that Canada cannot commit to anything new right now, as we recover from an economic crisis. This is why he has brought up the subject of maternal mortality rates, and this is why Canada will receive perhaps undue credit while it works away at old promises that have been left unfulfilled for far too long.

Haiti - The Next Afghanistan?

Haiti has long been a beautiful but very poor country. It experienced a catastrophic natural disaster, and now money is pouring in to help save it's inhabitants (and visitors from abroad) whose houses have collapsed, and are living with sparse food, clean water and medical supplies - not to mention the corpses. There is practically no police force and the government seems to have disappeared. It's all a horrific picture, and what I am hoping is that money continues to pour in after the earthquake slips from the front page of the newspaper, when it's the twelfth item on The National instead of the first. If it doesn't, Haiti will not only return to the state it was in before the quake, but will in fact be far worse off due to the collapse of it's infrastructure.



If money does continue to be donated by the international community, will we step in further and try to rebuild Haiti's government? Will we get too involved in re-structuring a broken country? Will the army step in? Will the USA try and invade Haiti, as they have been accused of doing already? Will Haiti turn into another Afghanistan, with foreign troops running the whole place and trying to stabilize a government that doesn't want help from the West?

I hope not. I hope we can just get in there and help, first with rebuilding the lives of Haitians, then with the physical structures. I hope it doesn't become an awkward situation, and that we can focus on saving lives instead of remodelling governments.

To Vaccinate, Or Not To Vaccinate

While the hype about getting the H1N1 vaccine has definately not worn off (especially not with that cool new commercial showing in movie theatres everywhere), it seems Canadians have breathed a sigh of relief. They have made the decision to either get the vaccine or not, and within a couple hectic months nearly forty-five percent of all Canadians were vaccinated. So, what's the next step? Whatever it is, I think we can all agree it doesn't involve vaccinations. That part of the pandemic is over and done with; either you got it, or you don't.

When I read in an article that Canada has lent Mexico five million doses of the vaccine as the Mexican shipment won't arrive in their country till late January, I wondered why we "lent" the vaccines and didn't just give them. In fact, I almost wrote this piece about how we should be giving the vaccines to Mexico and not asking for any repayment. But, I have changed my mind. Mexico will hopefully receive it's shipment of vaccines within the month and will easily be able to repay the borrowed vaccines. The question is then, what will Canada do with the surplus of vaccinations?

My hope is that they are donated to the World Health Organization, who will then distribute them to developing countries that cannot afford their own vaccinations. Apparantly there are many countries who have pledged donations, and I strongly hope Canada becomes one of them.

The President's Choice

In this article from the BBC website outlines the details of Karzai's latest struggle as President of Afghanistan. Seventeen of the twenty-four cabinet nominees (that's 70%) recently put forward by Karzai were rejected by Afghanistan's parliament. What does this reflect?

Karzai's government doesn't trust him to choose competent and worthy cabinet members. Karzai's government think him unable to tell who should be making decisions. Karzai's government openly shut him down.



This vote will make it very tough for the citizens of Afghanistan to trust and support him when his own parliament body does not. It certainly puts him in a dim and dirty light, especially seeing as the parliament body may have had the right idea. The man Karzai nominated for energy minister is "a warlord from a western province". Why would Hamid Karzai, whose validity as president has been fiercely attacked since he won the election through fraud, nominate a warlord to be in charge of energy production and natural resources preservation?

It will also put more strain on the international community, who have been fighting to rebuild a stable democratic government in Afghanistan for years. They must now face up to the fact that this government will not function unless Karzai and his government are seeing eye to eye and cooperating. Or perhaps they don't need to deal with this just yet... after all, if seventeen were rejected that means seven weren't, and any progress if good progress as far as Afghanistan is concerned.

I Wish It Could Be Christmas Every Day

With the Christmas holidays drawing to a close, so ends the incredible surge of love and compassion that mankind seems to feel around this time of year. This odd influx of caring never ceases to amaze me, but the hopeful feeling it leaves is always tainted by shame. Why is it that we need a pine tree decorated with lights, and carols blasting at us for hearts to be inflamed with sympathy? Why is it that we need to hear the words, "Well, it's Christmas!" to prompt us to spend an afternoon in a soup kitchen peeling potatoes or donate to a charity? We know how fortunate we in North America are. We live in a fully developed country with readily available clean water. You, the reader of this blog, have access to a computer. Perhaps you are in a library, where you can educate yourself for free, or sitting comfortably in your safe home. We know that others are far less fortunate, so shouldn't we be this generous all year round? Why is it that most of us only open our eyes at Christmas?




In an uncomfortably similar way, much of the North American public turns a blind eye towards the fate of the citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan. While we are aware that the reason our troops are in these countries is to protect civilians from the Taliban, we pass quickly over news of civilian deaths. Is it because we are ashamed that we cannot stop the deaths? Is it that so many of them occur that another car bomb or suicide bomber is old news? Or is it that many people do not consider the deaths of Afghan and Pakistani citizens to be as significant as those of American and Canadian soldiers?

Now, many of us would say unabashedly that this last point is, in fact, true. These are, after all, our countrymen dying - our boys - those brave souls who give their lives to protect others. They have families, and they have nations praying for them. But think about what you are saying - that any one life is worth more than another. The issue is not that the casualties are not being reported - they are. The issue is that they do not seem to be worth more than a sigh and a shake of the head, whereas a soldier's death generates much more of a response. Perhaps we would feel differently if we knew the civilians personally - but we should remember that they too are fighting a war, and with much less armour than our troops.

So, in the spirit of Christmas, click on the link below and read the brief article outlining the most recent of tragedies to befall Pakistan. Think of the families who have lost, think of what the men and women who died have given to their own country, and hope for a peaceful ending to this long war.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/01/01/pakistan-bomb-volleyball.html?ref=rss

Laying the Foundation

Matthew 7:25
'The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.'

I think the Bible has it right. One cannot construct something and expect it to hold unless it is built upon a solid base. This is why I believe that the Obama administration should focus on building stability rather than democracy in Afghanistan.

This may seem overly simple, and yet, the questions is also a simple one. Should the Obama Administration focus on building stability or democracy in Afghanistan? This was one of the issues discussed briefly in the article from The Washington Post, titled, "The deflated Arab hopes for Obama".

In my opinion, democracy will follow stability, and not the other way around. Thus, the United States should be doing all in its power to establish the kind of stability that will bring trust between the politicians of Afghanistan and it's inhabitants both of urban centers and rural areas. Stability, not democracy, will build links between the citizens of a country and it's leaders. Farmers will not trust their national army or police force just because the government is democratic; however, if there have been years of peace and, if not prosperity, then constancy within the economy, there will be a greater appreciation for and trust in them.

We have all seen in the recent Afghan elections that democracy will fail without sincerity and honesty. These qualities are not necessarily encouraged by democracy, where a vote can be secured with money, or bent a certain way through force and threats of violence. Stability, however, will mark a peaceful time when leaders are doing what is best for the people. At the very least, stability ensures there are little to no protests, riots, and violence, and therefore less civilian casualties. This cannot be promised with democracy, where everyone wants to have their say.

In the end, it all comes down to a foundation. If we lay the foundation of a stable country, democracy will blossom. The people will trust one another and fear will dissipate, and the government will be able to talk of matters other than war, fraud and elections.

If you are still not convinced, ask yourself this: would you rather see a peaceful Afghanistan, or an Afghanistan with a democratically elected leader? I, for one, think it unlikely that the two will co-exist.

Obama's War... Unveiled.

I recently viewed two videos concerning the Taliban and the war in Afghanistan. The first was Frontline's video, "Obama's War". It outlined the United States' involvement in Afghanistan and how Obama's war strategy is affecting the people and the troops in Afghanistan. It included interviews with generals, politicians and diplomats. It did not include interviews with Afghan citizens. The second video was "Afghanistan Unveiled," a short documentary shot by female Afghan journalists trained in their own country. These women had never before left Kabul, and so the journey to interview Hazara women whose lives have been uprooted by the Taliban was as much a first for them as for the audience. This documentary was solely about the citizens of Afghanistan, and all it showed of the international community's involvement was to mention the change that had occurred since the Taliban's defeat.



These two videos showed two sides of Afghanistan, and both were very informative on different issues. "Obama's War" showed where generals and other very important players stand on the issue of international involvement. It showed the efforts of the American troops to befriend the inhabitants of both urban and rural areas of Afghanistan, and the difficulties of doing so. It also explained the problem of Pakistan, with politicians and military men alike agreeing that this war will not end until Pakistan acknowledges that the Taliban are a terrorist group and makes an effort to displace and destroy their organization. It was a video that was directed towards ordinary citizens of the Western world, and more specifically, the United States. After watching this video, the general public will understand the reasons for and the importance of US involvement in protecting Afghan citizens and eliminating the Taliban, and this is perhaps the most important tool for Obama right now as he makes decisions about troops that could decrease his popularity amongst voters. If the voters are informed as to why the troops are there in the first place, they can make an educated decision as to which front they support.

"Afghanistan Unveiled" was a much more personal story and showed how the people of the country our troops are in are reacting to their new found freedom; it allows for the comparison of Western women's idea of freedom to that of Afghan women. It showed the true havoc and destruction the Taliban wrought on the women of Afghanistan: the loss of their personal freedom and security; the murder of their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons; and in the case of Hazara women, the displacement from their homes, whereupon they were forced to move into caves and other primitive dwellings. (More information about women's rights in Afghanistan can be found here, here and here.) The female journalists were in considerable danger while filming, especially as they went unveiled and wanted to interview other women. When they weren't turned away by tribal elders, the women they interviewed were generally veiled and restrained the passion of their misery lest they endanger themselves or their families for speaking out against the Taliban. The journalists were excited at the prospect of travelling, and honest in their commentary. They listened to their fellow countrywomen with earnest interest and empathy, weeping when they heard the stories of brutal rape and killings executed by the Taliban and the confinement and repression of women in urban areas. They showed the world what women in Afghanistan were going through, and the change that has occurred since the Taliban were overthrown.

Both these videos taught me something new about Afghanistan; I learnt of both the international affairs of the country and it's internal state, what it's people are concerned about and the hardships they suffer. These videos should be shown to more average citizens, so they come to know the invisible foe that we have all been turned against. Perhaps in learning more about the culture of this country we can unmask that foe, and know him better. After all, you can't help what you don't know.