The Parallel Parliament

by Glen Pearson

Category: The New Internationalism

Refugees: Are Solutions Possible?

screen-shot-2016-09-22-at-3-19-05-pm

THE FACES OF GOVERNMENTAL LEADERS flashing across our screens from the United Nations in New York in these last few days caused many to think it was just another gathering where prime ministers and presidents, ministers and bureaucratic head honchos were merely networking at the opening of the new UN season. For those listening to the delegations on television, however, it became pretty clear that the world’s nations were coming together to confront perhaps the greatest challenge of the last decade: refugees.

We learned some fascinating new statistics. In 2015 alone, some 20 million documented cases of refugees moving across the planet were posing challenges everywhere. Add up the totals of refugees for the last few years and it comes to 65 million people. We knew the number was many and the solutions few. Escaping persecution and seeking asylum presents so many challenges to the receiving countries, the international response mechanisms, and ultimately to the refugee families themselves. And so the world opted to come together in New York this month for the UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants. The media spent a lot of time focusing on the former, but often overlooked was the sheer rise in mobility going on around the world for those migrating in search of opportunity.

The summit learned that by the end of 2015, some 244 million people were living in a country other than where they were born – a total up from 173 million in 2000, according to the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

All of this is saying something, but I’m not sure we fully know what it is. Is the world increasingly on the move because of economic decline or greater economic growth – or both? Is it a sign that the world is coming together, or breaking apart? Could it be that we are becoming more of a world community as a result of all this movement, or is it more likely that there are now tears in the fabric of humanity that reveal millions of individuals and families lurching for security and prosperity in only a few prosperous nations?

All of this likely means that we aren’t prepared and that the UN conference was the first real attempt at assessing and shaping a tidal wave of humanity that might soon redefine how we function as a planet, as individual nations, and as citizens.

And it’s not all challenge and gloom. The conference was informed that in just one year – 2015 – migrants sent home $432 billion to developing countries to help their families with challenges like food security, education, new business ventures, and healthcare. That is a huge amount of money, triple the totals of foreign aid sent through Official Development Assistance.

I watched many of the speeches from the lectern this week and found myself thankful to see the world come together to face the challenge. But many present in the sessions got the impression that this is clearly a work in progress and that we’re only at the beginning of it. And complicating it all is the growing insecurity in places like the Middle East, Turkey, Greece, and the vast border regions around Russia. Should these get more out of hand, it will be inevitable that millions more will be cut loose from their cultural homelands and begin making plans to find peace and prosperity elsewhere.

While acknowledging the increasing scope of the refugee challenge, this week’s meetings decided to take some concrete action in at least attempting to build a coordinated response around the migration problem. Another summit is to be held at the United Nations in 2018 specifically on that issue.

Can there be breakthroughs? Are solutions possible? If we’re talking about assisting countries to accept more refugees and migrants, then perhaps more can be accomplished, but only to a point. If the real problem is the decline of nation states through economic turbulence and regional conflicts, how might the tap of human migration be stopped, or at least lessened? If many of these problems can’t be solved at the source, then just developing broader responses to the outflow of humanity from these regions can only go so far. Some of the problems, like an imploding Syria or an exploding Russia, remain unsolvable at present and keep real solutions from being easily discovered.

We aren’t talking about the fate of millions of people in search of hope, but, ultimately, about the condition and welfare of the planet itself. So many refugees is primarily a clue to all of humanity that something is seriously wrong in our world and unless we apply ourselves to the sources of such conflicts, the sea of desperate human souls will only become more desperate.

Gandhi’s Seven Sins

seven-deadly-sins-cover

Part one of a new series on Gandhi’s Seven Sins.  Link to it here – goo.gl/6WOp8v

Keeping the Peace in a New World

Anker-1-peacekeeping

LAST WEEK’S ANNOUNCEMENT OF future peacekeeping intentions provided some clarity on the resources committed to such efforts, though the precise locations for involvement remained vague. Until the Trudeau government finalizes its review of Canada’s engagement strategy in the larger world, it remains a difficult thing to target any one area. Nevertheless, the pledge of 600 troops supplied by a $450 million budget represents an intention to elevate peacekeeping to a place of higher priority.

Given modern realities, the announcement isn’t about attempting to recapture the lustre of the past but a necessary look to the future. When Lester Pearson won his Nobel Peace Prize in 1957, largely for designing the UN Emergency Force to resolve the Suez Canal crisis, military might was almost the exclusive purview of nation states. That paradigm ended a few decades ago and in its place are added terrorist organizations and non-state military actors in almost every corner of the globe. Any movement on peacekeeping must take that into account.

In his Insurgents, Raiders and Bandits: How Masters of Irregular Warfare Have Shaped Our World, author John Arquilla lays out the challenge:

“We have entered an era of perpetual irregular warfare. The great captains of traditional forms of conflict have little to tell us about this. Nor can the classical principles of war provide much help … Today it is clear that attempts to retool them against insurgent and terrorist networks will prove just as problematic.”

This is the world the Trudeau government is negotiating in its attempts at peacekeeping and it will hardly be easy. Arquilla is one of the most respected thinkers of this era and the path he lays out represents an imposing challenge to the federal government’s chief water carrier for the peacekeeping venture, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

U.S. military might remains huge and engaged in numerous troubled locations. While its defence outlays of one trillion dollars constitute half the world’s military spending, Russia and China together spend only 15 per cent. Yet as efforts to defeat ISIS (Daesh) attest, all the remarkable technology and military might can often be blunted by geography, tribal alliances, ignorance of local cultures, refugees, and even the interloping actions of other large nation-states.

Russia’s recent ventures aside, the world hasn’t seen a war between major powers in over 60 years, despite the fact that most military technology today had been designed for such altercations. And although the number of state-based military conflicts declined by 40 per cent in the last 20 years, military attacks by non-state actors like ISIS or Boko Haram in Nigeria have increased markedly.

In regional disputes around the world like South Sudan, Syria, Yemen, or Mali, it would be futile to employ cruise missiles, large invasion forces, or even stand alone military bases. The only workable option is smaller deployments consisting of defense and development personnel working on helping small markets survive, utilizing water sources as a tool for conflict management , protecting the internally displaced, and holding as many peace discussions as possible to reduce tensions. There exists no handbook or how-to guide for such situations; everything remains fluid and physical harm to Canadian personnel is always possible.

And it will be expensive, though unlike the billions spent in Afghanistan or Iraq. While it only cost Al Qaeda half a million dollars to fund 9/11, America spent $3.3 trillion in response. The economies of scale in such encounters will never change. But with the era of Afghanistan and Iraq now largely behind us, Canada’s decision to undertake a full review of its commitments in defence, diplomacy, and development, provides this country a chance to design a new international set of responses that reflect the realities listed above.

For a number of years, Canada posted between 50-60 peacekeepers to UN efforts and it was an embarrassment. The government’s decision to return to its commitment to global peace operations represents a significant shift. Yet peace enforcement is a marked departure from traditional peacekeeping. The one reality Canada can count on is that the world it engages is unlike anything experienced before, but, as Albert Camus put it in 1945: “Peace is the only battle worth waging.”

 

Canada’s Kind of World

images

PERHAPS THE GREATEST TEMPTATION IN THE WORLD of government is the politics of the urgent, and in a world of bad news the pressure to “do something” becomes endless. The recent incident in Strathroy, Ontario, of a man suspected of plotting a terrorist attack only provides further fodder for those concerned over the presently precarious state of the world. Turkey, Syria, France, mass shootings, individual acts of madness – all of these occurrences are pressing on the Canadian government at once, with pundits endlessly reminding us that something has to be done before our planet blows up.

But there is another world out there – a global place of collaboration and effectiveness that continues to get glossed over in favour of front page headlines. It is the kind of world that Canada excels at, and has for decades, and which runs concurrently with the other more alarming dimension that seems bent on violence and which gains almost the entirety of media coverage.

We rarely hear of the victories being won against the worst of the planet’s poverty, for instance, but the president of the World Bank, Jim Young Kim, says that it is the “best story in the world today.” In 1993, almost two billion people lived on less than two dollars a day. But as the world came together to support the Millennial Development Goals and their successor, the Sustainable Development Goals, in a more coordinated fashion, extreme poverty began to drop fast. And it continues to do so. Today that number stands at 700 million – a drop of almost 60% in just two decades.

How about education? According to UNESCO, the UN’s education arm, the last 15 years has seen a drop of almost 50% – 100 million to 57 million – of those children who had no access to schooling whatsoever. Before 1980, only 50% of girls in poorer countries finished primary school – a number that now stands at 85%. And where less than 50% of women could read and write, that number now stands at 93%. This is a remarkable achievement by any measure.

In a report released by Global Findex, we discover that between 2011 and 2015 an extra 700 million people from 140 countries gained access to finance for the first time. New mobile money accounts are resulting in tens of thousands of new businesses being established where before there was only grinding poverty. A portion of the success has been the access to the Internet that is presently revolutionizing the developing world through cell phones, especially in Africa, which has seen access to the Internet climb 51% in just five years. Right now, some 3.2 billion people can get online, but 2 billion of them are from developing countries. To understand the scale of this, back in 2000 only 300 million people could get on the Internet and only a third of those were from the developing world – an eight-fold increase.

The advances in healthcare are equally as staggering. Malaria cases have declined precipitously – 50% since 2000. Almost 7 billion people (91% of the global population) now are using improved clean water sources – a figure that stood at 76% in 1990. HIV cases have dropped by one-third. In 1960, 22% of children born in the developing world died before their fifth birthday; today that number is 5%.

The list of such advancements could go on and on, including income rise, the political empowerment of women, the decline of war worldwide, and the advance of democracy in developing nations. Better coordination among donor nations, improved ethical leadership in developing nations, and the success of globalization in these sectors have made the difference.

This is the world in which Canada excels and has contributed to in significant fashion. Successive Conservative and Liberal governments, with frequent insights and prodding from social activists in the NDP, Green, and even the Bloc parties have placed Canada squarely in the centre of global improvement. This is the Canadian influence Justin Trudeau inherited and must build upon. More than any other time in world history, success in these areas has risen to remarkable heights – a feat almost totally ignored by modern media.

From global emergency aid to longer-term international development investments, from micro-finance programs to Canadian business investment, and from peacekeeping to the modernization of our military – all of these are presently under an internal review in Ottawa and will take their time to roll out. In the meantime, however, Canada’s decades-long investment in improving the development of humanity is achieving remarkable heights. The Trudeau government, pundits, and Canadians, in general, would do well to keep all this in mind, even as we seek to respond to the immediacy of the global terrorist threat.

 

No “Team” in “I”

B9321378930Z.1_20160317115853_000_GA5DPLMM5.1-0

WITH THE FINAL NOMINEES SETTLED AND three months of campaigning ahead, this American election season is likely to be one of the most tumultuous in recent memory. That’s okay; political contests, especially south of the border, have ever been tumultuous affairs.

Yet there has never been anything like the showdown that has been building for months, largely because of Donald Trump. It almost seems like nothing new can be written about him. Appearing not to care what people say of him, the Republican candidate speaks with a directness that isn’t so much targeted as scattered about in every direction. This results in his dominating every news cycle, breaking every political protocol, and promoting a political war that seems to break every bond of respectability.

But in very real and concerning ways this election isn’t about Donald Trump at all, but the depths of the absurd millions of citizens are willing to embrace in order to send a message to the political elites of both parties in Washington. That people are upset with the financial bailouts, the fallout from globalization, stubborn unemployment, and political dysfunction, is a given. But is the best choice to send that message an individual who doesn’t respect numerous groups of immigrants and nations, who carries few credentials for the top political job in the land, and who scatters the election landscape with landmines designed to blow up at any time in order maintain the chaos that has so come to characterize public life in America at the moment?

It is likely that there has never been such a year in American political history when so many citizens disliked so many other citizens from all points of view and for such nonsensical reasons. When Trump said, “I will build a wall because nobody builds walls better than me,” he provided the modus operandi of his campaign.

Much has gone into the creation of this condition, but Donald Trump has been its main instigator. Is this really what Americans want, or are they just angry enough to suspend the traditional traits of respect and progress in order to get their point across? If so, then this America looks more like the America of 1927, where a season of prejudice became so combustible that more people were deported from Ellis Island than permitted in.

In tolerating so many lesser evils hoping that they will all add up to the so-called greater good, many good citizens are collectively guilty of bad math. It all merely adds up to political decline by calling for the baser instincts of a once proud nation.

In a boisterous era where citizens around the world are demanding seats at the tables of power more than ever, it becomes a major setback when the nominee for the GOP says things like: “I know what’s best for America,” or, “I will be your voice.” The need for a saviour, a political redeemer, the “great man,” is precisely the kind of political attitude that hundreds of millions of people have been endeavouring to shake off around the world. The fate of democracy lies not in the giant footprints of powerful leaders but in the millions of collective footsteps taken by global citizens interested in sharing power and fighting for a more equitable future among all peoples.

Do Americans truly desire a politics of resentment, where everyone is against everyone else? In a world where hate is as near as a keyboard or a gun, do people honestly wish to put power in the hands of a Commander-in-Chief that could place an army or a grand policy behind his animosities? With tolerant societies now fighting for their lives in Europe and other places, does a troublingly divided America honestly think it can lead from the middle of the pack?

Something is growing terribly amiss in our popular and moral culture when a man who openly insults any woman, race, immigrant, or vulnerable person finds a possible path to the White House. If being president isn’t about the power to divide but the responsibility to unite, then somebody has goofed. Rather than taking the easy way of looking for a voice, citizens themselves must raise their own voices in ways that bring a nation together. And if that nation is a global leader, then there exists also the possibility of working with others to bring the world together.

Donald Trump’s greatest blunder is believing that it is his voice that matters in a time when citizens themselves are craving to find their own articulation – for him there is no “team” in “I”. When a top presidential contender tells a crowd, “Frankly folks, if I don’t win this thing, then it was a total waste of time for me,” what does that say about his view of average citizens and the struggles of their own lives?

%d bloggers like this: