The Destiny of British Columbia Leadership

For those who do not live in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) you might not know the actors in this ongoing drama, but the plot remains interesting none the less. The premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, recently resigned over a massive backlash he and his government have faced following the undemocratic implementation of a harmonized sales tax (HST). The actual issue at hand is interesting, but not that important to the context of this article. What is particularly intriguing is the litany of BC premiers who recently have had to step down from their post in disgrace. Sure, not all of British Columbia’s leaders have shamefully exited the public spotlight, but an alarming amount have. Furthermore, it seems the majority of those who have not resigned were the premiers who replaced disgraced leaders.

Before Campbell, there was Glen Clark, who was forced to tender his resignation over the “Casinogate” scandal. Clark had accepted $10,000 in “free” renovations in exchange for granting one Dimitrios Pilarinos the casino application he sought. Immediately preceding Clark was Mike Harcourt. At one-time a highly popular premier, Harcourt crashed back to earth and out of the premiership during the so-called “Bingogate” scandal. Do we notice a developing trend? Harcourt had used funds from a charity bingo tournament to fund his New Democratic Party.

Continuing our look back, we stop next at Bill Vandersalm, the last elected leader before Harcourt. Vandersalm was an Evangelical Christian who owned a scripture-based theme park known as Fantasy Gardens. When it came out that the Taiwanese-based buyer of the park had been provided VIP government treatment, including lunch with the Lieutenant-Government (the Queen’s representative in BC), Vandersalm was forced to step down amidst the scandal.

These men actually carry on a tradition of scandal that dates back to British Columbia’s early provincehood. In the 30-or-so years after 1871, when the British colony of BC joined Canada, until 1903, when political parties first made their appearance in BC politics, the province ran through a revolving door of 15 premiers. British Columbia’s leaders have a history of using their position to influence personal business dealings. The 2^nd premier, Amor de Cosmos (the name alone should be a red flag) resigned because he used his position ensure several favourable land deals. The 3^rd stepped down over misappropriation of public funds concerning a dock-facility in Vancouver. The 14^th, coal-baron James Dunsmuir has been labeled the “most corrupt leader in BC history”. The list goes on and on.

Gordon Campbell fought hard against having to resign due to scandal. In 2004, the premier was arrested for drunk driving while on vacation in Hawaii. Because his government was taking a very hard-line approach with drinking and driving at the time, many felt his resignation was imminent. It never came. Campbell preserved, the man was obviously not a quitter; however, in the end, he had to fulfil his destiny. Thus was his fate as premier of British Columbia.

Hold on a minute...Omar Khadr is a war criminal?

One of the top news stories in Canada recently is the fate of the Pakistani-Canadian Omar Khadr. At age 15, Mr. Khadr was captured in Afghanistan in July of 2002 following a 4-hour firefight with American forces. Since then, Khadr has been kept in the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, where he stands accused of war crimes and terrorism for throwing a grenade that killed U.S. soldier during the aforementioned firefight. In Canada, a great divide exists over what to do about Omar Khadr. Some say he should be left to the American justice system to deal with, others think Canada should step in and him. Should be allowed to serve his sentence in Canada? The debate is raging. Even the Prime Minister has had to comment. Steven Harper has made his position clear though: the PM says that Khadr “stands accused of very serious crimes” and that must “wait until the American justice system runs its course before he makes any further comments.”

My question is then, why is Omar Khadr even in jail or on trail at all? In 1996, the Omar Khadr’s father Ahmed relocated his family to Jalalabad, Afghanistan where his father worked for an NGO. And here is where the sticky situation arises. The Khadrs knew and worked with Osams Bin Laden and the Khadr and Bin Laden childen played together. This maybe is not that surprising; Bin Laden was a pretty big man about town in Jalalabad circa 1996. Following the 1998 embassy bombings and the subsequent American cruise missile retaliation, the Khadr family following the Bin Laden’s into the Tora Bora hill region. Ok, so I admit it, this looks bad, it looks like Amhed Khadr was a good buddy of Osama. But remember, this is 1998 we are talking about, so young Omar was only 12 at this time.

I question why Omar Khadr is being prosecuted for the following reasons. First, he is being charged with war crimes because he threw a grenade that exploded and killed a U.S. soldier. That is really a shame for that U.S. soldier, I feel bad for him, and worse for his family. However, that young man made a choice, there is no draft, he chose to join the U.S. Army and accept all the dangers that go along with that profession. That U.S. was part of a multi-national force that was invading the country which Omar Khadr called home. Khadr then threw a grenade and killed a soldier invading his home. War crime? No...that just sounds like war. Is that not what happens in a war? People shoot guns and throw grenades and other less fortunate people on the receiving end of said projectiles and explosives end up dead. It’s not glorious but its reality. What about the U.S. soldiers who no doubt threw grenades back at, and mostly likely killed some of, Omar Khadr’s companions. Are they being charged with war crimes?

I guess what I am complaining about is the doubt standard. A NATO soldier throws a grenade he is doing his job, Muslim kid throws one back and he is a terrorist and a war criminal. I am all for prosecuting actual terrorists and actual war criminals. Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist, Slobodan Milošević is a war criminal. However, every Tom, Dick and Harry who throws a grenade, shots a gun or sets off an IED is not a terrorist. They are soldiers in a war. Like it or not Afghanistan is a war. And in war people die. There are many people in Afghanistan who see us as invaders and in my opinion they have just as much right to defend their country as we would. Our job is to convince them otherwise but we have to always remember this is their home. When we call every Afghani or Pakistani who raises a fist in anger against an invading army a war criminal we degrade the term and make it mean nothing.

Cameron's Defence Cuts and Britain's Place in Europe and the World

Many viewed the lowering of the Union Jack over Hong Kong in 1999 as the formal end of the British Empire. However, although Britain gave up that bastion of imperial pretence at the end of the 20^th century, her global military presence continued into the 21^st. Many defence analysts made the argument that the Blair Government joined the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 with the express purpose of maintaining its image as a power capable of imposing massive might thousands of miles from home soil (45,000 UK troops invaded Iraq). Very few nations actually have that capability. And as of October 19^th, 2010, the United Kingdom is no longer one of them.

The cuts announced have been downplayed by the new ruling coalition government as a symptom of the current economic crisis. The fiscal meltdown was no doubt the catalyst of these cuts; however, the reality of the situation goes far beyond the current economic recession. We may have the finally witnessed the true end of Britain’s global military presence.

A few facets of the cuts warrant further exploration and analysis with regards to the United Kingdom’s place in both the world and the European continent. Of particular import are the removal all UK troops from German soil, the reduction of the Royal Navy to pre-Tudor size (yes folks, this will be the smallest RN since Elizabeth I took to the throne), and large cuts to the mechanized branch of the British Army. Although the total overall cut of 8% across the board may not seem like much to fuss about, it is what is being cut, not how much that is relevant.

The end of the British presence in Germany is long overdue, yet it sends an important signal about which country holds the power in Europe and it certainly is not the United Kingdom. It took a hundred and fifty years, two world wars and half-a-century of Cold War division, but Germany is finally the undisputed master of Europe. The latter two points signal the end of Britain presence on the world scene. Although the RN will continue to maintain a carrier wing, it will probably be reduced to a single vessel, either the forthcoming Queen Elizabeth (2016) or the subsequent Prince of Wales (2018). And for a period between 2014 and 2016, the RN will be carrier-less (something is hasn’t been since the advent of aircraft carriers). As for the British Army, the mechanized backbone, tanks and self-propelled artillery, will be halved, replaced by towed-artillery and wheeled armour. This surely removes any notions of Britain having an army capable of wielding and overseas presence.

In closing, I do not disagree with these cuts. Britain in the 21^st century must become a vastly different animal to compete in the new globalized world and operating a military out of scale with its population and resources does not aid that goal. It is simply and interesting historical observation. It was a long time coming, and a long drawn out death, but the sun has finally set on Britannia.