“We support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win," stated the newest Canadian Prime Minister in April 2003. He is Stephen Harper, the leader of the Canadian Conservative Party and was elected Prime Minister of Canada on January 23rd, defeating the Liberal Party and it's leader, former Prime Minister Paul Martin. Martin's administration had been riddled with criticism following the February 2005 announcement of an investigation into government money laundering within the Liberal Party.
Prime Minister Harper is a leader with “a profound respect or the workings of a free-market economy and a set of neo-conservative beliefs that were being put into political practice by Britain’s Margaret Thatcher and America’s Ronald Reagan.” His stance on the Kyoto climate change protocol is far more skeptical than that of his predecessor, and his support for the Iraq invasion much stronger.
On the domestic front the greatest change Harper is looking to pass is a means to grant more federal funds (possibly in the form of tax points) to provinces. He does not unilaterally reject initiatives towards the decriminalization of marijuana, and seeks to maintain universal healthcare for Canadian citizens. Private companies may have more presence in the Harper administration’s vision for Canadian healthcare, but his plan is far from conservative by American standards.
Many similarities exist, however, between the conservative leaders from the two countries. Both are funded at least in part by oil companies, both doubt the purpose of the Kyoto agreements, and both ran on platforms of tax relief. His support for the administration has seen a shift in popularity in recent years. Former Prime Minister Martin saw backlash for his most recent campaign which attacked Harper and the Conservative’s ties to the American government. This was resented, however, by many Canadians. "In the last campaign, those attack ads worked. This time they won't. People are just fed up," said Peter Bryce, 46, a Canadian financial manager.

The Canadian public is not in support of the war in Iraq. Analysts do not think that Harper won this past election by not being adverse to the Bush administration. Corruption within the Liberal Party in previous years can more directly be linked to the Conservative Party’s recent success. “He's pretty creepy, however, he has not (yet) stolen a great sum of money from us, in the way that our previous friend Martin did, so... I
guess that is a plus, right?” says Toronto college student Yonah Lewis.
This administration is not likely going to abolish same sex-marriage, national health insurance, or other initiative differentiating them from modern American legislation. It is issues such as tariff negotiations, internal corruption, environmental laws, federal spending, and tax rates should will make clear the difference between these two parties. Prime Minister Harper must begin to take this overturning of Canadian leadership under wing and lead a now Conservative Canada.

Cleveland's Mid East History

"In 1984 diplomatic relations between Washington and Bagdad, severed in 1967, were restored, and the Unted States started to provide Iraq with miliary intelligence. The United States also pressured its allies not to sell weapons to Iran and, in the final year of the war, campaigned for an embargo against Iranian oil. When Iran stepped up its attacks on Kuwait shipping in 1987, the United States allowed Kuwait's vessels to fly the U.S. flag, thus making an attack on them equivalent to an attack on a U.S. ship. Washington also reinforced its naval presence in the Gulf, and on several occasions in 1987 and 1988, U.S. gunboats enaged in direct actions against Iran.'
"Although the U.S. government and media directed nearly hysterical criticizm toward Saddam Husayn and his regime during the 1990-1991 crisis, we should recall how crucial the U.S. assistance to Iraq was during the earlier war. For the United States in the 1980s, the demon of the Middle East was Ayatollah Khomeini, not Saddam Husayn, and Washington was willing to ignore the brutality of Husayn's regime in order to prevent the spread of the kind of Islamic radicalism and anti-U.S. sentiment represented by Khomeini. What was at stake for the United States in this war, as in that of 1991, was not human rights but oil reserves. The pro-Western Arab Gulf states controlled aver half the world's known supply of oil. If Iraq were defeated, then it seemed likely that the Gulf states would either fall to Iran or at the very least come within Iran's orbit. This was an alarming prospect for the U.S. government, and it therefore lent its support to Iraq. The United States; military and diplomatic intervention of behalf of Husayn's government played an important role in persuading Iran's leaders to seek an end to the war."
-Wiliam L. Cleveland
A History Of The Modern Middle East

King Abdullah

"After studying the targets and watching, we chose the places to carry the mission on some of the hotels, which the Jordanian dictator turned into a backyard for the enemies of faith - the Jews and the Crusaders,” wrote Al-Zarqawi on his Islamic militant group website, this Wednesday. Al-Zarqawi is one of the CIA’s most wanted men, a leader in the Al Quada based militant groups in the Iraq war. This Jordan-born rebel leader claimed responsibility for the three suicide attacks which ravaged Amman, the capital of Jordan, this Wednesday.
The Grand Hyatt, Days Inn, and Radisson Hotels in Amman were the targets. Signs of ties to America, to the “crusaders”, were the targets. Destroying Jordan’s agreement with Israel was an aim. This man, with a 25 million dollar price on his head, sent these bombers not to American led Iraq, but to his home nation’s once peaceful home city.
The “dictator” King Abdullah’s decision to make Jordan one of the two nations to sign over peace with Israel angered much of the staunchly pro-Arab groups and citizens of both Jordan and the Middle East. Being a nation surrounded by Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the West Bank, Jordan’s leaders have had to have taken countless stands on the issues involving their neighbors. In it’s modern history, few (if no) bombings have shaken and killed so many Jordanians.
The place of Americans is to amend what it means to be tied to our nation blatantly or through other nations such as Israel. The American government, if not to save the lives citizens of nations being targeted, must recognize the eye men like Al-Zarqawi have in connecting rulers to America. These attacks reiterate how easily rulers can offend the militant groups. King Abdullah had visited America many times, yes. True as well are his political sympathies for the Israel cause. His rule, however, has been seen as one with walked the political line fairly well. These bombings shed light on how his actions may have contained more of a leaning than previously thought. No longer can a wedding party with Jordanian notables in attendance in the capital be free of threat.
The benefits and drawbacks of having ties to what are seen by some as “Capitalist” and “Jewish” causes, are immeasurable. It becomes tiring to hear commentators on “Meet The Press” try to defend or harshly criticize rulers such as King Abdullah, who are seen with President Bush at the White House. How can the commentators even pretend to be certain of the future devastation or good that can come over being seen with Bush. Certainly Jordan’s geography and governmental system cause it to have to declare one message on the countless Middle Eastern issues. Their decision to make that message one with ties to America is nothing which we can pretend to understand the implications of. For a time it appeared as if they were panning out well for the government. The capital was once free of violence, the notables not targets of Al Quada. The implications of the bombings are that all is not well for this nation. Rulers cannot just side with America lightly, as King Abdullah had once been able to hope. As the forces clear out what is left of the reception halls deadly repercussions of alliances with Bush seem almost inevitable.

Donor Fatigue And The Media

During the question and answer portion of the panel discussion on Hurricane Katrina, this past Saturday in the MPR, a member of the audience asked for the panelists speculations on why it is that the earthquake has been receiving such less attention in the news and daily banter within the United States. The panelists offered the two most common explanations for such a disregard in the US for the crisis in Pakistan, the distance and race differences, and the inundation with natural disasters both presently and in the past year.
The most recent American news sources hold the death toll from this "mammoth earthquake" (MSN associated press) at 79,000 Pakistanis. Coupled with this immediate fatality count comes not only those who die from injured resulting in the earthquake but the approaching winter season, as well. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned the world community that a second "massive wave of death" could very possibly ensue from hard conditions steadily approaching the desolate region. Annan insisted that "This is a huge, huge disaster. It is a race against time to save the lives of these people. I would hope that the international community will respond and those with capacity will do everything possible to work with us and work with the Pakistani government."
As weather conditions threaten with potentially fatal temperatures for the millions living in makeshift tents, open spaces, and propped up homes in Pakistan, aid is less than for previous and arguably less pressing disasters, this year. “Nonprofits throughout the country are worried that people who gave money to Katrina-related causes will have less for them. They also are afraid that the increase in gasoline, fuel oil and natural gas prices sparked by Katrina and Rita will cause everyone to give less, period.” writes MSNNBC. Atlanta-based CARE said that as of last Wednesday, online quake donations so far have been roughly $200,000, compared to $1.5 million in online gifts at the same stage after the tsunami.
Between the tsunami in December, Hurricane Katrina this September, Hurricane Rita after it, and now more "Asian tragedy". The labeling of the tsunami and earthquake as "Asian disasters" as compared to the "American disasters" of the Hurricanes is prevalent in Op Eds discussing the "donor fatigue" charities are experiencing in the aftermath of the quake.
The media's lack of coverage for this tragedy is but a piece of the problem. Nightly news coverage has been remarkably less, with updates on Hurricane Wilma overshadowing that of Pakistan's situation. What is less blatant but very well may have effected the already weary American donors may be the frequent turn to site the Indian Pakistani conflict in reports on the region. Every article in the American media about India and Pakistan tends to mention the three times the two countries went to war," says Vinay Lal, professor of South Asian history at the University of California, Los Angeles. "From the American point of view, this has been the dominating theme... and [this point of view] is also extended to the [wrong] idea that Hindus and Muslims have been continually in conflict over centuries."

Guantanamo Hunger Strike

According to newly declassified accounts of detainees provided by the lawyers of those involved, there has been a hunger strike at the US prison camp at Guantanmo Bay, Cuba. The strike started on August 8th, 2005 and gradually spread across several camps in the prisons. The strike is in protest of the “harsh conditions” at the base including severe beatings and indefinite detentions, the lawyers of the detainees have explained. There are currently 500 men from 30 nations being held without charge at this facility. There exists conflicting reports from released inmates, calling it an 180 man protest.
The BBC news group reported in mid September that the US government had released information stating, “45 detainees were currently on hunger strike, down from 131 last week.” The US military defines a hunger strike as when a prisoner to misses nine meals in succession. The US government has neither confirmed nor denied that 15 of the detainees who have been taken to the hospital are being tube fed as the government has done during this protest.
Hunger strikes are not new to Guantanamo. It is documented that detainees had launched a prior hunger strike in 2002 after allegations that “guards and interrogators mistreated copies of the Koran”. The strike was ended when military officials issued new guidelines for proper treatment of the Islamic holy book. There then followed a strike in protest of the quality of their food and water in June which ended only for another to begin in August as well. This was in protest of specific beatings on the part of interrogators, the detainees claimed in recently decalssified documents, by their lawyers.
The captives are protesting what they describe as beatings administered by the prison's Immediate Response Force (IRF), squads of military personnel who are dispatched to put down disturbances in detainees' cells. Some protestors have said “they will refuse to eat until the military gives them a fair hearing or they die,” according to their attorneys. Much of the controversy over their sentencing, and therefore a bulk of the protest on the part of the detainees and their supporters, stems from the US government’s assertion that those held as “unlawful combatants” (as most inmates at Guantanamo are) are not protected by the Geneva Convention.
It was Supreme Court Justice nominee John Roberts whose most recent case on the Geneva Convention reiterated this US government policy. In Rumsfeld vs. Hamdan, Roberts ruled that the President was not constrained by international law and that “the Geneva Conventions do not create judicially enforceable rights.” This act further provides for the US government’s exemption from the codes which the Geneva Convention calls for regarding human rights, treatment, and other topics which the detainees are in protesting their handling of.
In 2004, three British prisoners, having been released without charge, claimed that “Ongoing torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution” was being committed by the US military personnel at the base. A Time Magazine article in June 2005 reinforced such accusations. It contained information from a Guantanamo interrogation logbook which reported that daily interviews began at 4 a.m. and sometimes continued until midnight. The interrogation techniques included refusing the described prisoner a bathroom break and forcing him to urinate in his pants. Many global organizations such as Human Rights Watch, The Red Cross, and The United Nations have complained about the procedures and standards of living at Guantanamo Bay. In addition, two former US presidents, James Carter and William Clinton, have demanded that the prison be closed down, calling it a terrible embarrassment for the United States.
The US government, which has been accused of using the Koran as a tactic for interrogation of its Muslim prisoners by certain detainees, has taken strides to combat this and other such accusations and continues to vehemently deny wrongdoing on their part. Government press releases take strides to call attention to their efforts on behalf of the prisoners. One such press release ensured that the call to prayer for Muslims is played over camp loudspeakers at the appropriate times every day and stenciled arrows point in the direction of Mecca to help detainees offer prayers.
As it stands, the hunger strike has been confirmed to have brought about no fatalities and has grown and shrank in number of protestors as reported by both the US government and those representing the prisoners. "They truly feel they have nothing left," said Yemeni detainees’ attorney David Remes. "I'm not sure what the end point will be. But I do predict there will be death."

Our Pledge

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled on September 14th that to recite the pledge of allegiance in public schools is denying schoolchildren’s right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”
"Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists'", Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow said. He has been fighting for years to have the courts recognize what he sees as the unconstitutionality behind the Pledge Of Allegiance. Those apposed to his cases have spoken out in editorials saying “Michael Nedow lives out on the left coast — in the land of fruits and nuts,” as well as arguing time and time again that his cause is another case clogging up our court systems.
Many see Newdow’s argument to the courts as an exaggeration of the impact which “under God” has in the Pledge. In Gwinnett county Georgia, Darrell Huckaby wrote “I don’t know about you, but to me, acknowledging the blessings of God on our nation in the pledge to the flag is about as far from establishing a religion as Jane Fonda is from Toby Keith.”
It is not up to the courts to deny hearing a case because it is seemingly trivial. Every time an American citizen sees their rights as being violated they have a right to bring it to the court system. Whether you applaud Newdow’s cause or find it an affront to your God and your nation, to claim that it is a waste of our court system’s time and resources is out of line.
It is, furthermore, not the case that Judge Karlton ruled based on his own opinions or political leanings. Senator John Thune of South Dakota said, in reference to the September 14th decision, “As we work to fill two vacancies in the highest court of the land, today’s news only serves to underscore the importance of appointing judicial nominees who refuse to allow their personal views to shape decisions. America needs justices whose respect for the Constitution is paramount in all proceedings.” It does not take personal interpretation to see the word God as present in our Pledge. It does, however, take personal interpretation to decide whether or not that is a tremendous problem. Judge Karlton ruled not that the Pledge was a terrible stain on our educational systems and a tremendous affront to our freedom but rather that the presence of “under God” was not inline with our freedom of religion in the United States.
As a citizen who is not required by law to see national headlines from all sides, it is easy to congratulate Judge Karlton for seeing the light on this matter. I hesitate, however, to be to hasty to pat him on the back. While I agree full heartedly with the fact that “God” does not belong in a universal statement of our nation’s beliefs, I do not want to fall into a battle mentality of religion and courts. I do not see his ruling as an affront to God but rather an affront to a flawed speech which so many thousands of citizens grew up reciting. I am weary and even sick of the regression in our nation into a superiority above religion with each court case that is won. It is wrong to feel that the religious in our nation have lost to sensible politics in this circumstance. It should be, rather, a victory for all Americans, a liberation of a once hindered freedom.