On Afghanistan and the 2008 Canadian
election: TAPIing on the door of transparency
September 9, 2008
by Diane V. McLoughlin
Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page has produced a
preliminary report on how much the military action in
Afghanistan has cost Canada thus far. Mr. Page has arbitrarily
decided to deny citizens the right to know this information
because he doesn't want it to influence us going into the
election. It seems to me that Mr. Page is a public employee
who's job is to serve the public interest - not the interests of the
Conservative Party - the only party that I can envision
benefiting from withholding such information. (*update, below.)
In my view, Canada is not much of a democracy when the
people are asked to vote on the one hand, while the powers
that be do their damnedest to keep the people deaf, blind and
dumb on the other. That we aren't even sure anymore whether
or not citizens ought to be entitled to know about any aspect of
governance, in this case military war financing, gives us a
glimpse into just how far down the rabbit hole we have already
gone.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
There will be public debates telecast between the major
political party leaders. Elizabeth May, leader of the growing
Green Party, has requested and insists, rightly, that she should
be included. Our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and NDP
leader Jack Layton, have both refused to participate in the
televised debates if she were to be included. Now, it seems to
me that the fact of the matter is that radio and television
airwaves are publicly, not privately owned. Harper, then,
provides but one more example where he runs the ship of state
like it is his own private yacht to do with as he pleases.
The television consortium should inform Harper and Layton
that in the public interest they will not be excluding any
Canadian political party leader from these public debates but
that they are free to participate, or not, as they wish. Harper
and Layton's decision to threaten to boycott debate if May is
there smells like fear to me: fear that we might be exposed to
something too scary to contemplate; that is, something
resembling the truth**.
On Afghanistan, besides the discussion of how much our
involvement in Afghanistan costs us (financial, reputation,
casualties) ought to be discussion as to why we are there in
the first place.
Some think we bomb and occupy Afghanistan because we
care. It is mystifying that the Afghan populace seems
increasingly not to appreciate this fact.
Is it really policy to bomb and occupy a country because it
isn't nice to women or because it would be a nicer place if it
had more roads, or schools or hospitals? Others believe we
bomb and occupy Afghanistan because, like finding Waldo,
we are looking for a man named bin Laden.
Points in question:
Are we actually fighting in Afghanistan to weaken local
opposition so that the TAPI natural gas pipeline can be run
through? (TAPI: Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan to India.)
Is this why American troops are beginning to soften up
Pakistan on its Western frontier now?
A Canadian connection? Thermo Design Engineering Ltd. is
probably the largest natural gas contractor operating in
Turkmenistan where TAPI will originate. Corporate
headquarters, Edmonton, Alberta.
The TAPI natural gas pipeline is possibly Afghanistan's largest
development project valued in the billions of dollars. The
proposed route runs straight through Kandahar Province
where the bulk of the Canadian military is based. (See:
'Afghan pipeline raises security questions'; by Travis Lupick;
Global Research.ca, July 21, 2008;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9640)
A TAPI predecessor? Before TAPI was the proposed
CentGas pipeline project with company UNOCAL being one of
the participants - a chief benefactor in the deal reportedly
would have been Halliburton. At the time, Halliburton was
headed by U.S. V.P. Dick Cheney. (Global Research; Wayne
Madsen, '02: Afghanistan, the Taliban, and the Bush Oil Team)
In 1998, UNOCAL pulled out of the CentGas consortium when
President Bill Clinton refused to recognize Afghanistan's
Taliban leadership - supposed by some to be a political
decision based on the sensibilities of America's women voters
- making it impossible for American companies to participate
in the construction of the pipeline.
And around, and around, and around we go.
Where does it stop? Actually, that is a passive question. Active
citizens in a democracy would ask the more pertinent and
forceful question: When should it stop?, and demand all the
information necessary to give intelligent direction and
oversight to the governance of their country.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
*Prime Minister Stephen Harper has since authorized the
release of Kevin Page's report which details the financial costs
to Canada of the Afghanistan war: 22 billion dollars.
**Prime Minister Stephen Harper and NDP leader Jack Layton
both changed their minds and agreed to participate in
televised political debates that include Green Party leader
Elizabeth May.
home
election: TAPIing on the door of transparency
September 9, 2008
by Diane V. McLoughlin
Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page has produced a
preliminary report on how much the military action in
Afghanistan has cost Canada thus far. Mr. Page has arbitrarily
decided to deny citizens the right to know this information
because he doesn't want it to influence us going into the
election. It seems to me that Mr. Page is a public employee
who's job is to serve the public interest - not the interests of the
Conservative Party - the only party that I can envision
benefiting from withholding such information. (*update, below.)
In my view, Canada is not much of a democracy when the
people are asked to vote on the one hand, while the powers
that be do their damnedest to keep the people deaf, blind and
dumb on the other. That we aren't even sure anymore whether
or not citizens ought to be entitled to know about any aspect of
governance, in this case military war financing, gives us a
glimpse into just how far down the rabbit hole we have already
gone.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
There will be public debates telecast between the major
political party leaders. Elizabeth May, leader of the growing
Green Party, has requested and insists, rightly, that she should
be included. Our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and NDP
leader Jack Layton, have both refused to participate in the
televised debates if she were to be included. Now, it seems to
me that the fact of the matter is that radio and television
airwaves are publicly, not privately owned. Harper, then,
provides but one more example where he runs the ship of state
like it is his own private yacht to do with as he pleases.
The television consortium should inform Harper and Layton
that in the public interest they will not be excluding any
Canadian political party leader from these public debates but
that they are free to participate, or not, as they wish. Harper
and Layton's decision to threaten to boycott debate if May is
there smells like fear to me: fear that we might be exposed to
something too scary to contemplate; that is, something
resembling the truth**.
On Afghanistan, besides the discussion of how much our
involvement in Afghanistan costs us (financial, reputation,
casualties) ought to be discussion as to why we are there in
the first place.
Some think we bomb and occupy Afghanistan because we
care. It is mystifying that the Afghan populace seems
increasingly not to appreciate this fact.
Is it really policy to bomb and occupy a country because it
isn't nice to women or because it would be a nicer place if it
had more roads, or schools or hospitals? Others believe we
bomb and occupy Afghanistan because, like finding Waldo,
we are looking for a man named bin Laden.
Points in question:
Are we actually fighting in Afghanistan to weaken local
opposition so that the TAPI natural gas pipeline can be run
through? (TAPI: Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan to India.)
Is this why American troops are beginning to soften up
Pakistan on its Western frontier now?
A Canadian connection? Thermo Design Engineering Ltd. is
probably the largest natural gas contractor operating in
Turkmenistan where TAPI will originate. Corporate
headquarters, Edmonton, Alberta.
The TAPI natural gas pipeline is possibly Afghanistan's largest
development project valued in the billions of dollars. The
proposed route runs straight through Kandahar Province
where the bulk of the Canadian military is based. (See:
'Afghan pipeline raises security questions'; by Travis Lupick;
Global Research.ca, July 21, 2008;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9640)
A TAPI predecessor? Before TAPI was the proposed
CentGas pipeline project with company UNOCAL being one of
the participants - a chief benefactor in the deal reportedly
would have been Halliburton. At the time, Halliburton was
headed by U.S. V.P. Dick Cheney. (Global Research; Wayne
Madsen, '02: Afghanistan, the Taliban, and the Bush Oil Team)
In 1998, UNOCAL pulled out of the CentGas consortium when
President Bill Clinton refused to recognize Afghanistan's
Taliban leadership - supposed by some to be a political
decision based on the sensibilities of America's women voters
- making it impossible for American companies to participate
in the construction of the pipeline.
And around, and around, and around we go.
Where does it stop? Actually, that is a passive question. Active
citizens in a democracy would ask the more pertinent and
forceful question: When should it stop?, and demand all the
information necessary to give intelligent direction and
oversight to the governance of their country.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
*Prime Minister Stephen Harper has since authorized the
release of Kevin Page's report which details the financial costs
to Canada of the Afghanistan war: 22 billion dollars.
**Prime Minister Stephen Harper and NDP leader Jack Layton
both changed their minds and agreed to participate in
televised political debates that include Green Party leader
Elizabeth May.
home