« 2005-10 | HomePage | 2005-12 »
11/30/2005
America Unplugged: Was Katrina the Beginning of the End?
America Unplugged
By Peter ZeihanThe presidency of George W. Bush is
failing.
Love him or hate him, Bush has had the most dramatic
international impact of any U.S. president in a generation. But as Bush's
fortunes ebb, his ability to control events in Washington and much further
afield are fading as well. Geopolitics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and
there is no shortage of players hoping to profit from the political
equivalent of U.S. self-flagellation.
American Paralysis
In August, we wrote that the United States was beginning to move "Beyond
the War on Terrorism." We argued that the United States had achieved the
bulk of what it had set out to do in first containing, and then pursuing and
dismantling, al Qaeda.
We put forward that Iraq was a central
feature of that plan, and that despite the ongoing horrors there, the broad
strategic goals that the United States set out to achieve had indeed been
accomplished. Saudi Arabia, Syria and -- to a lesser extent -- Iran were all
cooperating with the United States in destroying al Qaeda as a strategic
threat. The organization's offensive abilities degraded, from the ability to
pull off a Sept. 11, 2001, attack that reshaped the world, to a series of
metro bombings in London that did not even produce a glimmer of
consideration within the U.K. government that policy should change.
Terrorism, of course, continued to occur around the world, but its ability
to dictate U.S. foreign policy had largely evaporated. All that was left was
some hardly insignificant cleanup, and the United States could then get
around to the serious work of dealing with the real issues: boxing in China
and boxing up Russia.
But Iraq has not flowed gently into epilogue,
and the final agreements that seemed so tantalizingly close in August remain
elusive. In the interim, the American citizenry has grown weary of the
conflict -- in which the number of American dead has now passed 2100 -- and
Bush's popularity has suffered as a result.
But the real inflection
point of this presidency was not Iraq; rather, it was Hurricane
Katrina. Rightly or wrongly, Bush was perceived not just as unprepared
for a major hurricane strike, but also as oblivious to the seriousness of
the humanitarian disaster in New Orleans. This perception solidified the
opposition of the U.S. left, denied the president any help from the American
center and cracked the heretofore unified American right. The result was a
president in danger of losing his core supporters, without whom no president
can effectively rule. Similar circumstances condemned past statesmen such as
Wilson, Truman, Johnson and Nixon into the unenviable company of failed
presidents.
Since Katrina, the Bush administration's fortunes have
only slid further, with three critical defeats standing out most glaringly.
First, its primary congressional ally, former House Majority Leader Tom
DeLay, has been indicted for fundraising improprieties. Second, the
administration's efforts to shuttle Harriet Miers into the Supreme Court
resulted in a break within the Republican Party. Third, the vice president's
chief of staff -- Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- has been indicted for disclosing
the status of undercover intelligence officers to the press, a charge that
may well be pressed against political mastermind Karl Rove, and perhaps even
the vice president himself.
What this amounts to is that the Bush
administration has alienated the Republican Party's religious wing and those
who value national defense above all else. Between that and the loss of
DeLay, the president's star has fallen so far that he can no longer demand
meetings with key legislators; he must negotiate for them. His foreign
policy agenda is weighed down by the albatross of Iraq, and since
congressional Republican leadership is keeping its distance from the
president, his legislative agenda has not so much as budged in months.
Even if Bush manages to recover, we are eyeing what will be at least six
months of extreme administration weakness. If Bush does not recover,
however, stretch that out to until Jan. 20, 2009. A lot can happen in three
years.
And, as chance would have it, the United States is not the
only power currently facing a crisis of confidence and capabilities.
European Paralysis
The failure of the Dutch and French
referendums on the EU constitution during the early summer was more than
simply the failure of a vote; it signaled a failure of the very idea of
Europe as a supranational entity. Ultimately, the European Union
institutions as we know them today are a result of France's efforts to
transform the countries of Europe into a platform over which it could rule
and from which it could project power. France has always wanted to be able
to punch above its weight in the international arena, and Europe was to be
its vehicle for achieving that goal.
Yet in May, the French rejected
the EU constitution -- and with it, the French
vision for Europe.
In large part, the French rejected that
vision because they realized it had become unachievable. The other European
states were not willing to become French vassals, and once the French
realized that they were merely another member in -- and therefore merely
another subject of -- European institutions, French nationalism trumped the
French desire for French Europeanism. As the union expanded, part of being
European came to mean that France does not always get its way. Ultimately,
that is something that the French found unacceptable.
And this was
hardly the limit of what has gone wrong in Europe recently.
The
British enjoy a rebate from the EU budget for the years in which they
contribute more to the EU than they receive back (which is every year). The
French, who convinced the Germans to back them, are guaranteed a full
quarter of all EU agricultural subsidies even though they are among the
union's richest members. With the addition of 10 new -- poorer -- states
into the EU in 2004, the two standing policies are now in direct financial
conflict.
Put another way, for the French to continue to enjoy their
gravy train, either the British have to give up their rebate or all those new
poor states need to give up some of the EU development funds -- the one part
of the EU budget that is actually productive. Family spats over money are
always the most vitriolic, and this one has reopened issues about the
fundamental nature of the EU as well as discussion over the benefits and
problems of enlargements, both past and future.
With the very idea
of a European entity with a global reach DOA, the ability of "Europe" to act
abroad becomes limited to the capabilities of its constituent powers. And in
addition to these powers' lacking Washington's normal reach, they are nearly
as politically truncated as the United States.
As France reels from
the EU constitution defeat, it now also has to deal with the cultural,
political and economic aftermath of three weeks of race
riots. The United Kingdom's position on reducing the EU budget has
radically reduced its influence within Europe. But more importantly, the
Blair government recently
lost its first Parliament vote -- typically an early sign that a prime
minister is about to attach an "ex-" to his title.
Finally, there
is Germany, where Chancellor
Angela Merkel has just wrapped up her first full week on the job. The new
chancellor has more of a chance than any other European leader to get a fresh
start, by seeking a rapprochement with Europe's smaller states as well as the
United States. Yet even if she is wildly successful in her foreign relations,
and even if her awkward left-right coalition is not sunk by inter- and
intra-party bickering, this will still take a great deal of time. No, Europe
is as out of the international picture as the United States is for the
moment.
Of Absent Cats and Busy, Busy Mice
The result
is an unfettered international system.
The world has been gradually
sliding toward true unipolarity for the past 15 years. France's view of the
European Union was one attempt to stem that evolution, as are China and
Russia's on-again, off-again attempts to forge an unwieldy coalition of
powers that contains states such as Brazil, India or Iran. Ultimately,
however, geographic location dictates that all such attempts will fail.
The European Union could never be a political superpower because the
British, Irish, Spanish, Portuguese, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians,
Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks,
Italians, Dutch, Danes, Swedes and Finns really see no point to letting Paris
or Berlin dictate their domestic economic or foreign security policies. The
idea of a multipolar world is similarly unworkable. Adjacent land powers are
only able to ally when both face imminent destruction or one is in a clearly
subordinate position -- something that makes us watch Chinese-Russian
relations with increasing interest -- while a quick glance at the trade
flows of states like Brazil and India clearly show that any political
ambitions for setting up an anti-American alliance are limited predominantly
to rhetoric. It often does not take a great deal of effort for the United
States to use these characteristics to prevent such alliances -- geographic
features alone nearly assure an American preponderance of power -- and so,
since the end of the Soviet Union, U.S. power has increased step by step
relative to other powers.
But what happens when that dominant power
finds itself engrossed by internal developments? When this happened to
Russia during President Vladimir Putin's first term, Central Europe was
swallowed by NATO and the European Union; the United States moved troops
into Central Asia; China -- not Russia -- got its fingers into Kazakhstan's
energy resources and encouraged a thousand migrant feet to bloom in Siberia;
and color revolutions broke Moscow's grip on Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and
Georgia.
But now the United States -- indeed the entire West -- is
in a world of its own.
Eventually the period of inattentiveness will
end, even if it takes until the next election, so time is a precious
commodity. The question dominating the thoughts of national leaders who
often find themselves at loggerheads with Washington is: How do I maximize
my position before Washington stops staring at its own navel?
Down
in Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez has always done his best to take
advantage of Washington's short attention span, and the next few months will
be no exception. For him the mode is the Bolivarian Revolution -- and using
his ample oil revenues to extend his political reach by manipulating
elections in Bolivia and Honduras, supporting indigenous movements in
Ecuador, and likely funding Colombia's new united left wing, the Democratic
Alternative Pole. Across the border in Brazil, President Luiz Inacio "Lula"
da Silva is far less ambitious, but he is certainly reaping the rewards in
terms of public popularity by killing U.S. efforts to create a Western
Hemispheric free trade area -- the keystone of Washington's Latin American
policy.
In Asia, Pyongyang has got to be wallowing in glee. Anytime
the United States is distracted, North Korea tends to be able to foment
crises that get concessions from its neighbors. Beijing, while undoubtedly
equally happy, will be far more circumspect in its efforts. For China, a
U.S. disengagement allows it more time to whip its economy into shape. That
means slowing efforts to amend its currency policy; the yuan
peg will remain, and China need not worry overmuch about the United
States taking advantage of the social unrest that Beijing's softly-softly
economic reforms trigger.
Across the Middle East, where U.S. foreign
policy has been most active since the Sept. 11 attacks, the effect will be
far more noticeable among enemies and allies alike.
Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon will have no reason to do more than give the
occasional polite nod to American requests, allowing him to impose his
own version of a final settlement on the Palestinians; it will be one
they do not much care for. Pressure on Saudi Arabia and Egypt to amend their
political systems will either evaporate or be waved away. Syria has just
gotten the diplomatic equivalent of a get-out-of-jail-free card (and thus
has largely gotten away with the assassination of former Lebanese Prime
Minister Rafik al-Hariri and the maintenance of its position of superiority
in Lebanon). And if you thought the Iranian nuclear program issue was
agonizingly annoying before, just wait.
There is the very deadly
possibility that Iraq will go from bad to worse. With American pressure
ignorable, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran have little reason to cajole groups
to come to the table and every reason to manipulate events to their own
likings -- which, in all cases, involves making the American experience
miserable. U.S. power can no longer guarantee that the Kurds, Shia and
Sunnis will meet, much less hammer out a workable power-sharing accord,
leaving Washington -- still -- holding the bag and handing out concessions
to prevent the situation from degrading further still. And of course, Iraqi
guerrillas are hardly finished.
Although it may be out of the
headlines, the United States is still pursuing the al Qaeda leadership in
the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, which is extremely
difficult without the active participation of Pakistani forces -- forces
that in the best of circumstances need to have their feet held to the fire
to ensure cooperation. Without some robust American arm twisting, Pakistani
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has little incentive to pursue a policy that
could well bring his government down around him -- not to mention put a
bullet in his head.
The Russian Moment
But by far
the country with the most pressing need to act -- and coincidentally, the
most room to act -- is the one that the United States has been pressing the
hardest: Russia.
Unlike U.S. efforts to contain Venezuela or block
a rising China, with Russia the United States is playing for keeps. The
Soviet Union was one of only three states that have ever directly threatened
the United States -- the other two being the British Empire and Mexico. The
Soviet Union also came as close as any power ever has to uniting Eurasia
into a single integrated, continental power -- the only external development
that might be able to end the United States' superpowership. These little
factoids are items that policymakers neither forget nor take lightly. So
while U.S. policy toward China is to delay its rise, and U.S. policy toward
Venezuela is geared toward containment, U.S. policy toward Russia is a
simple as it is final: dissolution. Ergo Russia's
string of deep and rapid defeats.
But suddenly, the pressure has
evaporated.
We are sure to see much more traditional Russian thinking
in efforts to construct a multipolar world: attempts at hiving France and
Germany away from the rest of Europe; heavy diplomatic engagement with
would-be powers like India, China and Venezuela; a resumption of technical
efforts with Iran's nuclear power program; reinsertion of Russian influence
into North Korea and Syria. But ultimately all of these strategies represent
old thinking. What concrete results does Russia really get from having a
"strategic partnership" with India, aside from some arms sales? Political
hegemony in places like Syria reduces Russian strategy to the diplomatic
equivalent of a monkey wrench. The threat to Russia is far deeper, and so if
Russia is to use its breathing room to achieve anything of lasting use, it
needs a change of mind-set -- and that is precisely what is under way.
On Nov. 14 two men -- Dmitry
Medvedev and Sergei Ivanov -- were promoted to deputy prime
ministerships. Both are extremely canny politicians and have repeatedly
demonstrated the ability to think outside of traditional Russian paradigms.
For them, the pre-eminent concern is forestalling further Russian losses and
resurging Russian power. Stymieing U.S. initiatives -- the default position
for most Russian authorities who have been in positions of power since
Soviet days -- is only of high priority when those initiatives actually
affect Russia.
Put another way, the new deputy prime ministers
think that Russian policy should be a bit more thought-out than simply
shouting "nyet" whenever the Americans are up to something. For them issues
such as North Korea, Syria, India, Brazil and even Iran are of much lower
priority. The real issues are items closer to home: Uzbekistan, Ukraine, the
Baltics. It is less about attempting to maintain the long-outdated
international balance of the Cold War that Russia's nationalists crave, and
more about more traditional Russian concerns of securing the borders by
expanding them -- or at minimum expanding Russia's "zones of comfort."
And so it is in these borderlands where Russian efforts will intensify
in the months to come. A key tool in the Russian advance will be Gazprom,
the state natural gas monopoly, which incidentally boasts one Mr. Medvedev
as its chairman of the board. On Nov. 29, Gazprom's deputy CEO announced
sharp price increases for a range of former Soviet states, including the
Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia. In the case of Kiev, such hikes will likely
rip the bottom out of the Ukrainian basket.
A number of politicians
throughout the Commonwealth of Independent States are in the process of
discovering that not only is the Bear not asleep, but the Eagle is too
preoccupied to help shield them from its prowling. In some places -- such as
Poland and the Baltics -- where progress away from Russia is an established
fact, this will only deepen animosity toward Russia. But in others where the
situation is much more tenuous -- most notably Ukraine -- it is leading to
efforts at accommodation and will result in a resurgence of Russian
influence.
While the economic stick is the order of the day in the
western reaches of the former Soviet Union, the southern flank is seeing
primarily the military carrot. Central Asian states are many things, but
"stable" and "politically inclusive" are certainly not on that list. In a
region where Islam is the dominant religion and Afghanistan is but a short
walk -- literally -- away, the result has been a government demonizing of
militant Islam as a justification for authoritarianism.
Yet efforts
to maintain authoritarian control have reduced the options of any opposition
forces to one: operating outside the system. Imagine the shock in Central
Asian capitals when their policies gave life to the fears buried within
their rhetoric. Islam is now a bastion of political -- and sometimes
militant -- opposition, and a few sporadic Islamism-inspired attacks have
shaken Central Asian political establishments to their core. Suddenly the
United States' "revolution" efforts have gone from being perceived as an
interesting side note to a deadly threat, and Russia is happy to pick up the
pieces of Washington's post-Sept. 11 Central Asia security policies for
itself. U.S. forces have already been ushered out of Uzbekistan, and a U.S.
diplomatic and economic presence is really only welcome in Kazakhstan -- and
even there only on specific terms.
What is particularly notable about
this renewed Russian push is how much room there is for progress. American
policy in Russia's near abroad has largely been dependent upon the border
states' natural antipathy toward Moscow, and not on building stable
institutions or links between these regions and the wider world. This makes
vast tracts of territory easily accessible to the Russians, whose
infrastructure remains hardwired into the entire border region. Without
consistent Western attention, geographic realities can easily reassert.
Ukraine -- unlike Romania -- is simply on the wrong side of the Carpathians
for it to be otherwise.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
15:03 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
11/25/2005
Iraq: The Battle in the Beltway
Iraq: The Battle in the Beltway
By George FriedmanWith President George W. Bush's poll ratings
still in the doldrums, the debate in Washington has become predictably
rancorous. For their part, the Democrats continue to insist that Bush lied
about weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq, despite
the fact that Bill Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998 on the
basis of similar intelligence. The Bush administration didn't manufacture
evidence on WMD: If evidence was manufactured, it was manufactured during
Clinton's administration -- and the Democrats know this. On the other hand,
the Bush administration has slammed the Democrats' criticism of the war,
charging one Democratic congresswoman -- a congresswoman who served for 37
years in the Marine Corps (and was awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple
Hearts while in Vietnam) -- with cowardice for advocating a U.S. withdrawal
from Iraq. Republicans know better.
The current debate is making both
sides look stupid. But lest we despair about the fate of the republic, it
should be remembered that political debate in the United States has rarely
been edifying and, during times of serious tension, has been downright
incoherent. What is important about the current debate is not so much its
content -- there is precious little of that -- as the fact that it serves as
a barometer of the current situation in Washington as well as in Iraq. What
the debate is telling us is that we have come to a defining moment in the
war and in U.S. policy toward the war. That means that it is time to step
back and try to define the root issues.
Intelligence Failures and
Guerrilla War
Whatever the origin of the war -- and Stratfor
readers are aware of our
views on why the war was begun -- we can pinpoint the moment at which the
Bush strategy first ran into trouble. In mid-April 2003, just a few weeks
after the fall of Baghdad, guerrilla attacks in the form of small bombings
began to take place. By May 2003, attacks were occurring daily. It started
to become clear that a guerrilla war had been launched.
When people
talk about intelligence failures, they inevitably speak about the WMD issue.
That was trivial, however, compared to the failure of the U.S. intelligence
community to discover that the Baathists had planned for continued warfare
after the fall of Baghdad. Indeed, they did not even resist in Baghdad.
Understanding that defeating the United States conventionally was
impossible, they focused on mounting a guerrilla war after U.S. forces had
occupied the country.
The guerrilla campaign was not spontaneous. It
came together much too quickly and escalated far too efficiently for that to
be the case. The guerrillas clearly had access to weapons caches, possessed a
rudimentary command, control and communications system, and had worked out
some baseline tactics. They were too widely dispersed in their operations to
be simply a pick-up game. Somebody had set these things in place. That meant
that someone should have detected the plans.
There were two reasons
for this intelligence failure. First, detecting the kinds of preparations
being made is not easy. The United States was heavily dependent on networks
created by the Shiite leader Ahmed
Chalabi, and the guerrillas were Sunnis. We suspect that the sourcing
prior to the war blinded the United States to preparations being made in
Sunni territory. Second, and more important, Washington had a predetermined
concept about Iraq and Iraqi resistance, which many shared.
The
United States had fought the Iraqis during Desert Storm, and emerged with a
complete lack of respect for the Iraqi forces. Just as the Israelis had
developed a concept of the capabilities of the Egyptian forces in the 1967
war -- a concept that proved to be disastrously incorrect by the 1973 war --
so the Americans had reached a set conclusion about Iraqi forces. Moreover,
they had drawn political conclusions: Saddam Hussein's regime was unpopular
and its fall would be greeted with emotions ranging from indifference to
joy. Thus, the Americans focused on what they expected to be a conventional
military campaign that would create a blank slate on which the United States
could draw a new political map.
There was another side to this. The
American experience in guerrilla warfare was fixed in Vietnam. The lesson of
Vietnam was that the United States was defeated by two things: first,
sanctuaries for the guerrillas that the United States could not attack --
including a complex logistical system, the Ho Chi Minh Trail -- and second,
the terrain and vegetation of Vietnam, which prevented effective aerial
reconnaissance and placed U.S. forces at a tactical disadvantage. Iraq's
topography did not offer sanctuary or cover. Therefore, a full-scale
insurgency would be impossible to mount.
The United States had failed
to learn important lessons from the Israeli situation, in which guerrilla
warfare -- incorporating wildly unconventional means such as suicide bombers
-- was waged without benefit of sanctuary or clear supply lines. But more
importantly, the Americans had failed to take into account that while Iraq
could not field a large, effective conventional force, guerrilla warfare
requires a much smaller number of troops. Moreover, they failed to consider
that the behavior of forces defending Iraq's seizure of Kuwait during Desert
Storm might be different than the behavior of forces resisting American
occupation of Iraq proper.
Intelligence failures occur in every war,
and this one was certainly much less significant than, for instance, the
failure at Pearl Harbor. But this failure was conjoined with the
administration's assumption that, given the character of the Iraqi soldier
and the nature of Iraqi society, Iraqi resistance would not be sustained.
That error, coupled with the intelligence failure, generated today's crisis.
The problem is an intelligence failure overlaid by a
misconception.
Insurgency and Inertia
If intelligence
failures are a constant reality in war, the measure of a military force is
how rapidly it recognizes that a failure has occurred and how quickly it
adjusts strategy and tactics. In this case, the administration's concept
about Iraq blocked the adjustment: The Bush administration's position, as
pronounced by Donald Rumsfeld, was that the guerrillas did not constitute an
organized force and that they were merely the "dead-enders" of the Baathist
government. This remained the administration's position until July
2003.
That meant that for about three months, as the guerrillas
gained increasing traction, there was no change in U.S. strategy or tactics.
Strategically, Washington continued to view Iraq as a pacified country on
which the United States could impose a political and social system, much as
it did with Japan and Germany after World War II. This had a specific
meaning: The Baathists had been the ruling party in Iraq; therefore, driving
former Baathists out of public life, a process that mirrored what happened in
Germany and Japan, was the strategy. Tactically, since there were no
guerrillas -- only criminals and remnants of the former regime -- no
military action had to be taken. U.S. forces remained in an essentially
defensive posture against a trivial threat.
The decision to force the
Baathists out of public life had two effects. First, it drove the Baathists
closer to the guerrillas. They had nowhere else to go. Second, it stripped
Iraq of what technocrats it had. After a generation of Baath rule, anyone
with technical competence was a member of the Baath party. That meant that
the United States had to bring in contractors to operate Iraq's
infrastructure. But if we assume that the Baathists over time could be
replaced by other Iraqis with sufficient training, then this was a rational
policy.
The administration realized its error in June and July 2003.
It replaced CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks earlier than scheduled with
Gen. John Abizaid. The problem was that the insurrection, by then, had taken
root. It is not clear that there was ever a point when the insurrection could
have been stopped, but certainly, the three-month lag between the opening of
the guerrilla war and the beginning of an American response had made it
impossible to simply stop the insurrection.
At the same time, the
insurrection had a basic weakness: It was not an Iraqi insurrection, but a
Sunni insurrection. To underscore a point that most Americans seem unable to
grasp, most of Iraq never rose against the Americans. The insurrection was
confined to the Sunni regions and -- despite some attempts to expand it --
the Shia and Kurds were not only indifferent, but completely hostile, to the
aspirations of the Sunnis. If the American Achilles' heel was its inability
to force a military solution to the insurrection, the weakness of the Sunnis
was their inability to broaden the base of the insurrection.
However,
once it was established that the insurrection was under way, the American
conception collapsed.
Reaction: Negotiations
First,
the view of the Iraqis as essentially passive following the war gave way to
a very different picture: The Sunnis were in rebellion, and the Shia were
confidently preparing the way for a government they would dominate. Iraq was
not Japan. It was not a canvas on which a contemporary MacArthur could
overlay a regime. It was not even an entity that could be
governed.
This led to the second shift. The United States could not
unilaterally shape Iraq. The other side of this coin was that the United
States had to make deals with a variety of Iraqi factions -- and this meant
not only the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds, but also factions within each of these
groups. Indeed, the United States had to deal not only with the Iraqi Shia,
but also with the Iranians, who had real influence among them. The United
States had to try to split that community -- which in turn meant dealing
with former Baathist officials who were supporting the fight against the
United States. In other words, the United States had to deal with its
enemies.
When you don't win a war, you can end it only through
negotiations, and those negotiations will take place with the people you are
fighting -- your enemies. At the first battle of Al Fallujah, the Americans
made their first public deal with the Baathists. Indeed, the American
strategy turned into a political one: U.S. forces were fighting a holding
battle with the guerrillas while negotiating intensely with a dizzying array
of people that, prior to July 2003, the United States would have had
arrested.
The American concept about Iraq is long gone. The failure
to identify the intentions of the Baathists after the war is now history.
But the essential problem remains in Washington's public
posture:
1. The administration cannot admit what is self-evident:
it does not have the ability, by itself, to break the back of the Sunni
insurrection. To achieve this, the United States needs help from
non-jihadist Sunnis -- Baathists -- as well as the Shia. U.S. troops cannot
achieve the mission alone.
2. In order to get this help, the United
States is going to have to make -- and is, in fact, making -- a variety of
deals with players it would have regarded as enemies two years ago, and must
make concessions that would seem to be unthinkable.
These negotiations
are constant. The United States is doing everything it can to get former
Baathists into the political process -- people who were close to Hussein. It
is working intently with people like Ahmed Chalabi who were close -- some say
very
close -- to the Iranians. It is cutting deals left and right like a
Chicago ward boss.
This is, of course, precisely what the United
States must do. Its best chance at a reasonable outcome in Iraq is to split
the Sunni community between jihadist and Baathist, and then use the
Baathists to counterbalance the Shia -- without alienating the Shia. It
takes the skill of an acrobat, and the fact is that Bush has not been too
bad at it. The war itself has become a side show. U.S. troops are not in
Iraq to win a war. They are there to represent U.S. will and to act as a
counterweight in the political wheeling and dealing. War is politics by
other means, so being shocked by this makes little sense. Still, the numbers
of U.S. troops are irrelevant to the real issue. Doubling them wouldn't help,
and cutting them in half wouldn't hurt. The time for a military solution is
long past.
Battle in the Beltway
The problem with the
hysteria in Washington is this: In all the negotiations, in all the
promises, bribes and threats, the one currency that counts is the American
ability to deliver. The ability to craft a deal depends on the ability of
Bush to threaten various factions, and to make guarantees that can be
delivered on. There is a pretty good chance that some sort of reasonable
settlement can be achieved -- not ending all violence, but reducing it
substantially -- if the United States has the credibility it needs to make
the deals.
The problem the Bush administration has -- and it is a
problem that dates back to the beginning of the war -- is its inability to
articulate the reality. The United States is not staying the course. It has
not been on course -- if by "course" you mean what was planned in February
2003 -- for two years. The course the United States has been on has been
winding, shifting and surprising. The fact is that the administration has
done a fairly good job of riding the whirlwind. But the course has shifted
so many times that no one can stay it, because it disappeared long
ago.
Having committed the fundamental error -- and that wasn't WMD --
the Administration has done a sufficiently good job that some sort of working
government might well be created in Iraq in 2006, and U.S. forces will
certainly be withdrawn. What threatens this outcome is the administration's
singular inability to simply state the obvious. As a result, the Democrats
-- doing what opposition parties do -- has made it appear that the Bush
administration is the most stupid, inept and incompetent administration in
history. And the administration has been reduced to calling its critics
cowards.
The administration's position in Iraq is complex but not
hopeless. Its greatest challenge is in Washington, where Bush's Republican
base of support is collapsing. If it collapses, then all bets will be off in
Iraq. Bush's challenge is to stabilize Washington. In fact, from his point of
view, Baghdad is more stable than Washington right now. The situation inside
the Beltway has now become a geopolitical problem. If Bush can't pull it
together, the situation in Iraq will come apart. But to forge the stability
he needs in Washington, the president will have to explain what he is doing
in Iraq. And he is loath to admit, from his own mouth, that he is making
deals with the enemy.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
10:55 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
11/18/2005
Stratfor: "Realism in Russia?" by Peter Zeihan
Realism in Russia?
By Peter ZeihanFrom an American perspective, the Eurasian
landmass can be both an intimidating and endlessly invigorating place.
Intimidating, because it is the only landmass on the planet save that of
North America that has sufficient resources to nurture and give rise to a
truly global power; invigorating, because the existence of many disparate
powers there make the task of preventing a single power from arising
relatively easy. The sheer size, internal geographic divides and myriad
states and ethnic groups that are native to Eurasia are perhaps the
strongest factor guaranteeing U.S. national strength -- and on a
subconscious level, all U.S. policymakers realize that.
Within
Eurasia, the perception is, of course, different -- and particularly in
Russia, at the heart of the entire region. While the interconnections of
North America's geographic features -- its plains, river systems and coasts
-- promote development and political unification, Russia's endless tracts of
land and sequestered river systems assist with neither.
As a massive
territory with no easily defensible borders, Russia's geography has dictated
major aspects of its political history: It has been, at various points, a
conglomeration of fractured principalities (the era of Muscovy and Tartary),
a region subjected to sweeping and brutal occupations (the Mongol
occupation), and a native centralized tyranny that was able in various ways
to subjugate the principalities (the tsarist era and the Soviet period).
The result is a culture that equates change with pain, and one that
reflexively views the outsider as either a threat or as a parasite. It is a
logic that is difficult to counter. On one hand, Russia's major interactions
with outside powers -- whether Mongol, Polish, German or Islamic -- have not
left it with sweet memories. On the other, it is obvious that Russia's
suffering under outside powers was beneficial to others: For example, the
Mongol occupation of Russia spared Europe a similar experience, while the
Nazi invasion of Russia set the groundwork for the birth of the
American-dominated West we know today.
The resulting cultural impact
could be best described as a sense of besieged entitlement -- and never has
it been more evident in Russian policy than since the Soviet collapse.
At several points in the past 15 years -- NATO's war against
Belgrade, the introduction of U.S. forces to Uzbekistan, the EU accession of
Finland and Sweden, and Ukraine's recent attempts at realignment, to name
only a few -- Russia's initial resistance and defiance was followed by
stunned disbelief.
In retrospect, all of these were events that could
be expected as a once-dominant power weakened, but then why was Russian
preparation for these battles so nonexistent? Why were Russia's reactions to
critical losses limited to anger and rhetoric, as opposed to preparation for
the future? The answer goes deeper than simply a lack of options -- Russia
was, and remains, a powerful country with many tools for making its views
known and its will reality.
What Russia has lacked, however, is an
elite class that is capable of pushing beyond the bounds of what could be
described as fatalistic paranoia. Put another way, the Russian leadership
has suffered from a superiority complex based on an inferiority complex:
Because Russia has suffered greatly, the argument would go, it is both
stronger and entitled to a greater role within the global community than it
feels it has been afforded. While such a viewpoint can be psychologically
comforting, it is frequently less than useful in maneuvering through the
grand and often deadly game of geopolitics.
And so Russia has fallen
back. At least partly as a result of a clouded worldview, it has lost
influence and territory: Nicaragua, Syria, Mozambique, Angola, Vietnam,
Poland, Latvia, Cuba, Serbia, Mongolia, Georgia, Ukraine. But worst of all,
from the standpoint of a Russian, Moscow has yet to demonstrate it is
capable of crafting a response consisting of anything more substantive than
rhetoric.
Russia needs many things if it is to halt this seemingly
unending slide. But perhaps the one thing it needs most urgently is a new
point of view. And earlier this week, it appeared that changes under way at
the Kremlin could be destined to give it just that.
On Nov. 14, two
unusual Russian politicians -- Dmitry Medvedev and Sergei Ivanov -- were
appointed as deputy prime ministers. Their rise signals a sharpening of
Russian policy both at home and abroad, with the Kremlin beginning to take a
clear-eyed view of its positions and policies around the world.
A
New World View?
To understand the potential direction of Russian
policy, it is important first to understand these two men.
First,
Medvedev. The former presidential chief of staff, now first deputy prime
minister, is certainly a pro-Western technocrat. But he is akin to neither
the starry-eyed reformers who applied disastrous shock therapy in the 1990s,
nor idealistic pro-Westerners in the mold of Grigory Yavlinsky who want to
see Western democratic institutions grafted wholesale onto Russia. At 40,
Medvedev is just old enough to fully comprehend how far Russia has fallen --
having been 24 when the Berlin Wall fell -- but just young enough to have a
mindset radically different from his predecessors. Most critical is that he
admires the West despite the fact that -- unlike Putin -- he has never
worked abroad. His respect is rooted in the accomplishments of the West and
what Russia potentially could gain from them, not out of the unrealistic
desire of many of Russia's pro-Westerners to actually "join" the
West.
In contrast with most reformers, Medvedev believes that the
state should play a strong role in the economy -- particularly in key
sectors such as energy. Medvedev was a key, if quiet, figure in the
onslaught against Yukos, and he is chairman of the board for Gazprom,
Russia's state natural gas monopoly -- which just happens to be the world's
largest energy company. These are not the stances and actions of someone who
believes that capitalism is a magic wand that will fix all of Russia's
problems.
Ivanov, who was Russia's defense minister before being
named deputy prime minister, is similar in his uniqueness. Like Putin,
Ivanov spent the bulk of his career in the Federal Security Service (FSB),
and both were stationed in Europe for a time. Thus, he, like Medvedev, has a
healthy respect for military, economic, political, social and technological
capabilities of the West. But where Medvedev sees opportunities in
interactions with the West, Ivanov perceives threats. Thus, he is a magnet
for the siloviki -- a group of foreign policy, military and
intelligence personnel who want to see Russia restored to its former
glory.
Yet while Russia's nationalists in general and the siloviki
in particular consider him their best-known sympathizer, Ivanov is far more
pragmatic than the average nationalist. Unlike many of the defense ministers
who came before him, he is not concerned about NATO tanks rolling eastward --
realizing that the United States, much less the rest of NATO, lacks that
capacity. Instead, he worries about the steady expansion of Western
influence -- which spread first to Central Europe, then the Baltics, the
Balkans, the Caucasus, and now Ukraine. Ivanov views the West as more of a
cultural and economic threat to Russia than as a military juggernaut.
Both Medvedev and Ivanov are pragmatists and patriots -- though they
obviously still hold their own business interests as well -- and thus are
more likely to occupy the middle ground that pure reformers or nationalists
avoid.
Medvedev sees Western-style corporate governance as a sound
ideal to impose on Russia's oligarchs -- but not at Gazprom, which he sees
as a key to future foreign policy. Ivanov sees cooperation with NATO as a
necessary evil, but more as a means of building a more efficient Russian
military than out of any expectation of swaying NATO policy. And both men
see China as an opportunity: It is a customer for Russian energy and
weapons, and -- by forming a political alliance against the West -- a
crucial potential partner in security policy. But, unlike the siloviki, they
are also more likely to take a comprehensive view of the power to the east,
noting the implications of its giant economy and China's recent "Northern
Sword" military exercises, staged on Russia's southern border. It has not
been lost on either that ethnic Chinese in the border region outnumber the
Russians by more than ten to one.
In short, both see threats in
every opportunity, and opportunities in every threat, making them the first
competent, pragmatic, clear-eyed politicians to reach the top of Russia's
political heap since the Soviet breakup.
Yet neither Medvedev nor
Ivanov is a particularly strong candidate to succeed Putin, despite rife
speculation on that score in the Russian press. Medvedev is Putin's prot�g�,
Gazprom's chairman, and the Kremlin's grey cardinal, but so far he lacks a
sizeable political following from which to independently launch his career.
He well could cultivate such a resource in the next three years, but he does
not have it yet.
Ivanov, meanwhile, is likely not someone to whom
Putin would gladly hand the reins. Unlike Medvedev or Ivanov, Putin is an
instinctual Westernizer -- to the degree that the Russian press has often
quipped: Putin Joins West, Russia May Follow.
So why advance Ivanov
into greater prominence? Two reasons. First, Ivanov has the ability to
either unleash or hold back the nationalist tide, a capacity that Putin
would be foolish to ignore. Second, should Putin's goal of Westernizing come
to naught (something that must have at least crossed his mind as Ukraine
peeled away), Russia would be forced into direct confrontation to the West.
If Russia is to be ruled by a nationalist, Putin would prefer that it be
ruled by a nationalist who is capable of viewing the world without the
preconceptions that have cost Moscow so much.
While this shift has
significant implications for Russian policy, it is important not to overplay
what has occurred. The rise of Medvedev and Ivanov is an important first step
in a shift that Putin is trying to engineer -- but not the shift in sum. That
said, it is clear that the rise of these two men will influence policy in
more than simply subtle ways -- particularly since their promotions
coincided this week with other events of note.
Russian Policy:
Through a Prism of Pragmatism
Another aspect of Putin's Cabinet
reshuffle was the unceremonious sacking of Konstantin Pulikovsky, Putin's
envoy to the Russian Far East (and point-man for the Kremlin's North Korea
policy), without the benefit of a follow-on position. And on the same day,
the FSB arrested Igor Reshetin, general director of TsNIIMASH-Export
company, and two of his deputies for (illegally) transferring space
technology to the Chinese.
For the past decade, Russia's Far East
policy has been quite simple: China is a natural ally of Russia and as such
should be extended economic, political, military and technological favors as
a means of solidifying the relationship.
This perception, has not,
however, been reflected south of the Amur River. While the Kremlin treated
China as an ally, Beijing has viewed Russia as an opportunity at best or a
nuisance at worst -- but certainly not an equal. Wary of political strings
Russia tends to attach to deals, China has been focusing on Kazakhstan as a
key source of energy supplies, and sending its money there rather than to
Russia. Meanwhile, Beijing is unofficially encouraging its citizens to
migrate to Siberia, while also buying Russian hardware to upgrade its
military capabilities. And China has steadily siphoned influence away in
North Korea, leaving Russia largely an outside observer in the six-party
nuclear negotiations. None of this would have been possible if Moscow had
been taking a more realistic assessment of Beijing's motives and
actions.
Between Reshetin's arrest, Pulikovsky's dismissal and
Ivanov's rise, a full re-evaluation of Russia's Far East policy appears to
be in the works -- if not the formation of a new policy that will no longer
blindly assist China's rise without consideration of the long-term
consequences for Russia.
Similarly, Russian policies in Central Asia
are being re-evaluated, although here -- where Moscow's direct influence is
much stronger -- the actions are bolder. A mutual defense treaty Putin
signed in Tashkent on Nov. 14 signals light-years of change from the mutual
hostility that characterized the bilateral relationship as little as two
years ago. This is partly because of a shift within Uzbekistan itself:
President Islam Karimov feels that the United States not only engineered the
various color revolutions that have brought about government changes in
Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, but that Uzbekistan was next on
Washington's list.
Despite its many problems, Uzbekistan is the
most powerful Central Asian state, and whoever has the most influence there
can shape events throughout the region. Due to a much more proactive Russian
stance -- influenced in no small part by Ivanov -- that player is no longer
Beijing or Washington, but Moscow. In fact, not only is the airbase the
United States set up in southern Uzbekistan for the Afghan war being
dismantled on Tashkent's orders, but the Nov. 14 treaty raised the
possibility of a Russian replacement.
Russian proactivity in Central
Asia is not limited to the military sector or Uzbek geography. On Nov. 14, as
so many other key changes were being announced, Gazprom -- which, remember,
is chaired by Medvedev -- entered into a five-year deal that locks down
control of all natural gas exported via Kazakhstan. A good chunk of
Kazakhstan's oil may soon be flowing to China, but now Gazprom is swallowing
all natural gas exported by all Central Asian states. Anyone who wants to
purchase Central Asian natural will discover that they actually have to buy
it from Gazprom. Which means from Medvedev -- and thus, from the
Kremlin.
This change is likely to flare open some eyes across Europe
-- particularly in the Baltics and Ukraine, where leaders are used to being
able to purchase natural gas from Turkmenistan as a means of increasing
their independence from Moscow. Now there is only one player in town, and
that player sets all the prices. Russia has threatened for years to charge
states that do not play by its rules more for natural gas, a development
that would cripple most of them. Now there are no barriers whatsoever to
stop Russia from following through as it sees fit.
Implications of
a Russian Shift
Such policies will, of course, have consequences.
China long has taken the existence of an amicably passive Russia as a given.
A Russia that is openly suspicious -- or even one that asks the occasional
nervous question about "Northern Swords" -- is one that Beijing needs to
figure into its planning in a very different way.
Relations with
Europe are bound to get sticky as well. For instance, the question of
Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization likely will move into
limbo. The biggest point of contention is the role that Gazprom plays in
pricing natural gas -- selling supplies domestically at one-fifth the rate
of international sales. The Europeans want the indirect subsidies to end. A
Russia that uses energy as a tool to pressure rivals -- particularly if
those rivals are EU members -- while maintaining artificially cheap prices
at home will generate considerable discomfort in Europe.
At this
point, it is impossible to trace all of the potential ripples from changes
now under way in Moscow. But what is clear is that, with the rise of
Medvedev and Ivanov, Russia is gaining two leaders who both understand some
of the roots of Russia's current weakness, and who have demonstrated an
ability to think outside the traditional Russian box.
Their
ascendance indicates a creeping re-evaluation of Russia's position. It is a
change that will manifest in all of Russia's relations -- particularly in
areas where the Russian position previously has been driven by hopes or
fears rather than cool, pragmatic calculations.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
09:55 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
11/16/2005
Elizabeth Edwards is Disappointed
 | ||||||
| ||||||
 | ||||||
|
14:43 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
11/14/2005
Original Website Critical of Activa Holdings
Over at tdaxp I wrote about Activa Holdings, which apparently is the NationMaster of Canada. They sued a Canadian woman for a critical website. Because of all the traffic it has been taken down, but here is a copy of it. Hat-tip to Robert Douglass for a the backup copy:
Environmental and Labor Law Infringements in Waterloo Region
November 3rd 2005
Today I have spent a fair bit of time with various individuals since word of this legal action came out. I've contacted ministries, local political reps and the media to let them know of the situation in order to bring to light the plight of our construction workers, our public's safety and the need to apply enforcement measures to protect them all.
I hope this action helps to facilitate actions to help resolve these issues. Before I could not afford a lawyer but now I could qualify for legal aid. I look forward to bringing this issue to a judge.
Louisette Lanteigne, Waterloo Ont.
Getting sued in Waterloo - November 3rd, 2005
This is a quote from the Statement of Claim
"the malicious, high-handed and arrogant conduct of the Defendant warrants an award of punitive or exemplary damages to ensure that the Defendant is appropriately punished for her conduct and deterred from such conduct in the future."
I am getting sued for this website which I built to facilitate the reporting of environmental and labour law infringements. Greg Murdoch of Sorbora Law office served me the papers last night saying that Activa wants to sue me for for $2,000,000 regarding defamation.
They want $500,000 general damages, $500,000 General damages$500,000 special damages and $500,000 punitive damages with prejudgement and post-judgement interest on the aforesaid amounts.
They want an interlocutory injunction restraining me from further broadcasting regarding Activa
They want an Order directing me to remove the infringement website.
An order requiring me to preserve all documents and evidence related to the matter
Cost of this action on a substantial indemnity basis
Such further and other relief as this Honorable Court deems just.
( J.Greg Murdoch of Sorbara Law Office)
I want very much to bring this issue infront of a judge and I was actually hoping that an injunction would facilitate that. I wasn't counting on a $2,000,000 threat to go with that but if necessary, I will proceed with years of documentations and photos to back me up. If anybody wants to help or if anybody knows of a lawyer willing to help me counter sue, feel free to contact me.
Louisette Lanteigne,700 Star Flower Ave, Waterloo Ont. N2V 2L2
(519)885-7619
On Saturday April 16th 2005, an environmental spill was reported to the Waterloo Regional Environmental Enforcement Services after I spotted multiple leaks of diesel fuel and oil at an area construction site located near the storm management pond at the corner of Bleams and Fisher Hallman in Kitchener.
I have been reporting such infringements by various companies to both the Ministry of Labor, the Ministry of the Environment as well as to Waterloo City Council and the media over the past 4 years. The city's response has always been quick and effective to address the immediate situations and they had given developers warnings but after a week or so, the sites would fall often fall back to unsafe standards again.
I spotted similar spills during the construction of my own subdivision of Columbia Forest in Waterloo years ago as well as in the neighboring subdivision of Laurel Creek Village in Waterloo. In all the following situations I have documented, the infringements took place in the area of the Waterloo aquifer or near storm management ponds. I am concerned that such polluting will pose a direct risk to the region's drinking water. I have witnessed unharnessed roofers in Columbia Forest, Clair Hills, Laurelwood Village and in Kitchener at the Laurentian Village subdivisions both before and after I went to city council and the Ministry of Labor. This is in direct violation of existing Labor laws. This site is created to provide the public with the actual photos of what I saw so that we can all see and learn how best to proceed with this situation. All the photos and contents of this website are free for anyone to use.
Yours sincerely,
Louisette Lanteigne
Waterloo OntarioThursday October 13th, 2005
At 12:10 pm, I contacted Sorbara Law office to speak with Gred Murdoch regarding Activa. He wasn't in his office so I left a message saying if he wanted to speak to me, feel free to contact me at my home.
He never returned my call.
Today (Sept 16th)I recieved a "Notice of Alleged Libel in a Broadcast" refering to the webpage that you are currently reading.
This notice came from Activa Holdings Inc. via their lawyer J.Greg Murdoch of Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP.
Allow me to clairify once again, this website is designed to facilitate the reporting of labour and environmental law infringements to municipal, provincial and federal officials and to try to educate the public on the subject of safety so they can also make their own reports if necessary. In order to place the reports and to illustrate the existing situations I have to mention where I saw the infringements and what companies are involved. It's that simple.
I don't make any money doing this and I have no motive to want to do this other than a deep concern for community safety. Ideally I would love to have nothing to report on because that would mean there isn't a problem but the truth is, we need enforcement.
Unless I see an injunction from a judge, this website stays.
October 4th 2005
Things are not doing so good in Laurentian Village in Kitchener. Behind the Prosperty Homes trailer located on Henhoeffer Crescent and Activa, I saw a suspicious looking diesel tank. I took a closer look and saw it was intentionally supported on a pile of scrap wood on a tilt. That's when I noticed the rubber hose. The hose was being used to syphon the diesel fuel and below it was evidence of a spill. The area smelled strong and the ground was saturated.
I saw many unharnessed roofers and dozens of workers without hard hats actively working on site. This one unharnessed roofer was quite a site to see. The yellow cable in the roof photos is the extention cord for the nail gun this fella was using while working on a roof of the house at 23 Big Springs Court. He squatted down on the wood of the roof and slid down it like a slide.
Activa is the developer of this site. They are supposed to be responsible for the environmental and labour law compliance. I contacted the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministery of Labour and the TSSA about this one.
Currently Activa is trying to get a zoning change so they can build a new subdivision in Vista Hills in Waterloo directly over 1% of the Waterloo Moraine's recharge area. They have built over the moraine in my subdivision of Columbia Forest and in Laurel Creek Village and in both cases, I have photographed and reported leaks of diesel and oil and have reported numerous labour and environmental law infringements.
I have recently joined up with the Citizens for the Protection of the Waterloo Moraine in an effort to raise public awareness on the issue of ground source water protection. I want to see the Waterloo Moraine protected with the same legislation as the Oak Ridges Moraine. Our moraine provides 300,000 people with ground source drinking water. We're the largest region in North America dependant on ground water. This moraine is one of the major sources for the Grand River and that is the only source of drinking water for Brantford, Brent County and Six Nations.
Right now the Vista Hills land is up for rezoning. Ironically, this subdivision is already featured in an area phone book and it was on a free commercial map that was distributed to area homes. Even real estate guides have featured the completed Vista Hills subdivision on their maps for four years. The truth is the land is still agricultural. If the rezoning to residential takes place before the moraine is protected this subdivision will be built.
I ask both the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Labour to please step in and see what you can do in regards to protecting our groundwater from Activa. We know their history. The citizens of Waterloo Region simply cannot afford the risk.
September 27th 2005I recieved a letter from the Minister of Labour Steve Peters updating us on the current situation in Waterloo. He said the use of safety harnesses and fall protection especially in the roofing/siding industry remains top priority for the Ministry of Labour's construction inspectors. Between June 14-Mid September, construction inspectors in the Region of Waterloo have investigated 95 complaints, issued 350 orders and initiated 18 more prosecutions in the course of their inspection and enforcement activities.
In regards to the photos I took of the beer bottles on the construction site at Laurel Creek, he said alcohol consumption on construction projects is enforced under the federal Criminal Code by local municipal police officers. Construction inspectors who encounter this usually refer it immediately to police.
Thank You to Minister Peters and all the hard working men and women with the Region of Waterloo's Ministry of Labour office for their wonderful work in helping to keep our workers safe.
My heartfelt thanks to each of you!
September 23rd 2005The KW record published that an 8 year old boy was killed in Montreal by falling wooden pallets on an unfenced Construction site and charges may be laid against the owners of the site.
This story affected me deeply on a personal level. I have seen children making forts out of pressure treated lumber and brick quite often in the lot behind my house from May 2000 til 2003. This was located beside the only completed parkette in our subdivision.
In one incident, I watched a large group of unsupervised kids, around 12 of them between the ages of 5-12 years old, make a brick fort with a plywood roof and they put a BBQ inside that they tried to light it. They were jumping on the rooftop. I called the police immediately and this resulted in the relocation of the debris to a fenced in area away from residents and children. After that I still saw kids and parents taking scraps from construction areas to use as building blocks for little ones.
Parents should be aware that Pressure Treated wood is not safe. It is contains many chemicals including arsenic and it's a known carcinogen. If you or your child handles this wood, immediately wash your hands. For more information regarding this known toxin, visit here.
I have seen kids playing in a stagnant pond of water that was 4ft deep. It was filled with building debris including paint cans, fiberglass insulation, pressure treated wood, oil residue and tadpoles. This area located over the Waterloo recharge that gathers our ground source drinking water.
"Treated wood should not be used where it may come into direct or indirect contact with drinking water, except for uses involving incidental contact such as docks and bridges"
US Environmental Protection AgencyThis body of water stood unchanged for three years until area residents went to the city to clean it up. This was in Columbia Forest Subdivision on White Elm Blvd. Below is the photo of this area as it stood for three from the time I moved in. This "Lake" that was over 40 ft. wide. Residents thought it was a storm management pond. Beside it is a photo of the sludge and tadpoles that swam in it. Kids always came here to catch the tadpoles. The next three shots featured the basic condition of our area parkettes. There were no completed parkets in our subdivision for over 2 years after residents moved in.
. On September 18th as I was inspecting Laurel Creek Subdivision and witnessed two boys around 8 or 9 years old making a fort with building debris. Both the boys were carting off a workhorse together than they gathered pressure treated wood scraps to make the fort.
Parents in new subdivisions under construction should make sure their child is supervised when they play outdoors. Know the dangers and speak to kids about it.If building debris has been found in the vacinity of a children's park or unsafely stored in an area where children play, please contact the builder or developer ASAP. If they don't respond, call the police. A child's life could depend on it.
September 18th 2005I got a new digital camera today and it took me less than a half an hour to find all sorts of infringements in the Laurel Creek Subdivision.
At 5:52pm I spotted two separate diesel tanks that were unlocked. This is in direct violation of existing Labor laws. The Waterloo Fire Prevention Unit and the Technical Standards and Safety Authority were both contacted in regards to this as well as the Ministry of Labor. One of the tanks was located in lot 150 and the other was located beside Eastforest Home's Trailer.
At 5:35 I spotted the oil spill located at lot 37, civic road 386 Red Osier. It was reported to the Ministry of the Environment's Emergency Spills Services and it was actually cleaned up by a fella who worked for the City of Waterloo. The spill was right across the street from an ESPA forest and this location is over the recharge for our City's groundwater supply that we drink from. There is a trail made by the city, but I witnessed 5 people in total who decided to take a stroll through the forests instead. One went with their dog. I also heard the gunshots of area hunters.
At 5:47 I spotted a high level of debris that has obviously been left uncleaned for a rather long time located at 586 Violet St. There is also evidence of construction workers drinking on the job at this location. A set of two beer bottles was found beside a home being built by Eastforest Homes. There was only an empty lot beside this area so it wasn't from the neighbours. The large beer bottle was found on the other side of the same house half buried with in building debris. In the back yard there was paint spattered on the ground in several spots but I didn't get a photo of that.. In the front yard of this home lay the pile of bricks as seen in the photo below. The last photo just shows the rubbish on lot 226 where Decora builds. There really is no need for area residents to have to put up with this sort of filth.
August 22 2005
Today I recieved an email from a person who's home was built in a Waterloo subdivision. I will not disclose the identity of this person but I have passed this to the MOE and MOL.
"They stored a leaky dozer in the foundation of my building prior to erecting the frame. I was unsuccessful at getting the spill cleaned up… as they poured cement over it to cover it up (I have pictures). So my house sits upon plume of gas and oil. I am sure the vapours escape into the air I breathe everyday. I also have pictures of contractors drinking beer as they build the interior of my house."
July 27th 2005New Minister of Labor Steve Peters contacted me via letter to extend support for my efforts in reporting labour law infringements. He said the Ministry of Labor does not have enough inspectors to monitor all construction activities however complaints can be made by workers and the public to ministry inspectors who will then investigate, enforce and prosecute as needed.
To make a complaint or to voice a concern, please call the Occupational Health and Safety Call Center at 1-877-202-0008.( The Ministry will honour all requests for Anonymity)I'd like to take this time to welcome Mr.Steve Peters as our new Minister of Labor and to thank him for caring about our KW workers!
I'd like to also welcome Laurel Broten as our new Minister of Labor! (Thanks for the letter!)
June 24th 2005There are unconfirmed reports of a Safety Inspector being beaten at 146 Purple Sage in Laurentian Forest. The incident involved an assault by a frame builder who was arrested by the Waterloo Regional Police. I have inquired with police service and they can't disclose any details at this time. If I hear anymore regarding this incident, I will update you on this.
The days are long and hot. Learn the signs of Heat Stress before it happens. Click the button.
Hard Hats protect you from Heat Stress. Learn the facts, wear the hat.
June 17th 2005
I recieved a letter today from Minister of Labor Chris Bentley. He wrote "I understand that several of your safety related complaints to the Waterloo Ministry of Labor Office have been followed up, written orders have been issued and inspectors have initiated prosecutions. In fact since April 1 2005 in the KW area, inspectors have launched 20 new prosecutions."
One hundred new enforcement officers have been hired this year and one hundred more will be hired within the next year. He thanks me for contacting the government regarding these issues and he forwarded a copy of this letter to Gerrard Kennedy the Ministry of Education.
June 9th 2005The local situation in regards to work place safety on area construction sites is growing worse in this hot weather. Today, I spotted workers on various sites throughout KW working without harnesses, hard hats or even shirts for that matter. Workers without hard hats and harnesses were spotted in Mannheim Estates and Laurentian Village in Kitchener as well as in the Clair Creek subdivision in Waterloo as seen in the photo below.
The largest number of infringements I saw was in the Forest Gate Subdivision off Erbsville Rd. in Waterloo. This small subdivision is located just across the street from where Wideman Rd. meets Erbsville. Here I spotted many brick layers and construction workers working without hard hats. I saw around 27-30 of them in total. Below are some photos of what I saw. This subdivision was being used as a Government of Canada Youth Training Strategy program in conjunction with the Waterloo District School Board. Basically it's an area where co-op training of high school kids takes place to give them on the job experience. There wasn't a class here at the time I took these photos however it was still unsettling to know that there are a number of young summer workers here.
When I called the local Labor office to make a file a formal complaint, the office gave me this number in Hamilton to call. When I tried to file a complaint they wouldn't let me because I required an address. I drove back to the site to get it. When I arrived to the site I realized there were no signs indicating street names or even the name of the subdivision itself. I went to a man who appeared to look like a site manager with clip board in hand. I asked him if he could give me the name of the street we were on. He looked at me and said, "Well it doesn't have a name yet." I asked him if he could tell me the name of the subdivision we were in. He said they don't like to disclose this information because there are people taking pictures who are causing some trouble." I took that as a hint that he knew me from the articles in the paper or otherwise. I got no help from him so I had to go to the city's development services to find my answer. The subdivision is Forest Gate and the street we were on is Forest Gate Crescent.
The Ontario Buiding Code Act requires that a copy of the building permit be posted in a conspicuous location. This copy of the permit would identify the lot number, the Registered Plan number, as well as the permit number.
May 18th 2005Today I recieved a letter from the Honorable Leona Dombrowski, Minister of the Environment. She wrote "The advocacy on behalf of your neighbourhood is commendable and I encourage you to contact the ministry at one of the two aforementioned numbers to report any further incidents." She provided me with the list of contact numbers shown at the bottom of this page.
I encourage all residents to record this information for your own use should you spot any infringements in your area.
There was an interesting article published in the Waterloo Chronical on May 18th written by Michael Hiemstra who brought to light the issue of using the web as a vehicle to protests. I agreed with many of his arguments and in response, I would like to present this explaination as to why I brought this information online.
May 17th
I spoke at the Waterloo City Council on May 16th and presented the following speech at the Waterloo Regional Council regarding the planning of the designation of the Environmentally Sensitive Landscape (ESL). I voiced concerns regarding some of the ongoing infringements by our area construction companies and have requested that our region hire a designated officer to patrol area construction sites for both labor and environmental infringements on an ongoing basis. With the ESL, we will preserve the source of our water but if we don't enforce environmental standards throughout the region it may still result in the contamination of our drinking water.
Friday May 13th 2005
Back to bad habbits in Laurel Creek subdivision. This photo taken on Buttercup Court features two workers working on a house without hard hats and one fella is in shorts. This took place at 9:45 am.
At another area construction site, unharnessed roofers and workers without hard hats were spotted working in the vacinity of high school students who were part of a federal Youth Training Program. Students were here at the time of the infringements that I saw. This incident was reported to the Ministry of Labor. The School Board was contacted and they quickly responded to ratify the situation. It's such ashame that our area builders were not better examples for these kids. This took place at the Forest Gate subdivision and was reported to the Ministry of Labor as well as the board of education and the ministry of education.
Sunday May 1stAt Laurel Creek Village, the diesel tank is now properly covered with a water proof cover to prevent possible overflow of fuels. Sites in both Clair Hills and Laurel Creek Village appear much cleaner, with the propane tanks properly stored away. It makes for a much nicer view for new home buyers and it's much safer for area residents too. I hope this becomes a long term practice. It's good to see!
Sorbara Law had issued a letter in regards to this website that was mailed April 19th. I read their letter and I believe that they saw my website during a transition period when I was adding new information regarding a fuel spill on Bleams Road. The website had implied that the April 16th spill was involving Activa Holdings but this was incorrect. I did speak with the authorities regarding the incident and made the correct changes on April 19th around noon and from that point on, everything on the website was 100% accurate. All the incidents on the website have been inspected by the City of Waterloo and the Region's Environmental Enforcement Services and the Ministry of Labor.
Wednesday April 20th
On April 19th the KW Record reported that a construction worker fell 9 meters off a roof and injured his back. His name was not released but the incident took place on April 18th before 10 am on Forest Gate Crescent near Erbsville Rd. In spite of this incident these are the photos of what I saw on April 20th in the Laurel Creek Village subdivision.This area is being developed by Activa.
I took these photos on my way home from the Ministry of Labor office. I went to the Ministry to mention that I had previously seen roofers unharnessed working off of Erbsville Rd and I tried to address this issue to City Council and the Labor Ministry before the incident of the roofer falling happened. They told me to call this phone number.(1-877-202-0008) On the way home I saw these infringements and took the photos. When I got home I called the number and mentioned the workers in the rain. The phone attendant told me to contact Laurel Pautler from the local Ministry of Labor office. I phoned her and filed a formal complaint via phone regarding this. I mentioned to her about the spill that took place on April 16th and she assured me if the Regional Environmental Enforcement office finds anything labor related, they would contact her office about it. I am unaware if this has been done so to date I have not filed a formal complaint to the Labor Ministry regarding the Kitchener spill on April 16th, but they are aware of the situation and will be notified of the website for their own reference. I will notify the Environmental Enforcement Services to forward any info regarding possible labor infringements to the Ministry of Labor. The date and time on on these photos is correct..
The Center to Protect Workers Rights (CPWR) says that roofers have the fifth-highest work-related death rate in construction, 29.9 deaths per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, about twice the average for all construction of 15.2. About 50 roofers are killed on the job each year, most by falls (chart 1). The information in government reports suggests that inadequate fall protection is responsible for most of the fatal falls.
Saturday April 16th 2005
This incident was seen at approximately 4pm on April 16th as I drove by the Laurentian Village subdivision off of Bleams and Fisher Hallman. The infringements I witnessed were located on the west side of the storm water management pond. I went home and reported the incidents to the Waterloo Regional Environmental Service and returned to the site at approximately 8pm to take these photos. (The date setting on my camera was not set properly).
When I first spotted the site, all the gas and oil containment units were unlocked. This was in direct violation of Ministry of Labor safety laws. At the time I took these photos, someone had visited and placed locks on all the tanks. I used my shoe to help assist in visualizing the size of the spills. The dark spots are oil while the larger spills are diesel. In the image with the blue water pump, this was located right beside the water. Here are the photos of what I saw. To see the larger image, just click on the small photos.
An article written by Philip Jalsevac, regarding this spill, was published in the KW Record on Thursday April 21st. In it, Thomas Schmidt, the region's commissioner of transportation and environmental services, said the Ministry of the Environment was advised of the spill but said "they wouldn't respond to something like this because it was relatively insignificant." He went on to say "Clearly, we want people to manage their site appropriately and to make sure they don't spill these types of materials and to make sure they clean them up." He also added, "We're not out there all the time. If people see spills, it's absolutely appropriate to call in and get it dealt with."
Based on what the Environmental Services Department saw it didn't look too bad but after the article I contacted Mr. Schmidt about this.
New info regarding the April 16th spill
April 25th 2004
Here are some photos taken directly across the street from Sir John A MacDonald School on Laurel Creek Drive in the Laurel Village subdivision. These photos were taken on Saturday April 25th 2004 at 5:30 pm after the Emergency Spills officer arrived. I saw this and called them immediately.
The first photo is an oil spill. The other photos are in regards to the leaky diesel tank. The tank was being stored in a tub to help contain the leak. By law the tub must be covered by a tarp to protect the fluids from possible overflow from snow and rain. The handle and cap of the tank should be locked. I had reported this to the Environmental Spills officer. He described this situation as "Very bad". With him present, I took the photos of me holding the gas nozzle so I could show this situation to Waterloo City Council. There was two inches of loose fuel in the tub at the time I took these photos. Upon closer inspection, I noticed that the cap was off the base of the tub allowing for the diesel fuel to leak onto the ground. You can see the 2-3 inch groove left in the dirt from where the fuels had escaped onto the ground. I brought this to the attention of Waterloo City Council and they quickly responded by making Activa remove all the contaminated soil. This area is located on the Waterloo aquifer which recharges our groundwater.
Winter 2005
The following photos illustrate the continued environmental and labor law infringements in Laurel Creek Village (Columbia Forest II) in the winter of 2005. The tanks are still unlocked and uncovered from snow and rain. As you can see the levels of the fuel/water mix in the tank is quite high and close to the overflow levels. I also witnessed the unsafe storage of propane tanks throughout the subdivision. At this point I filed my first formal complaints to the Ministry of the Environment as well as the Ministry of Labor for unsafe storage of fuels. I witnessed many roofers working without their harnesses for years during the construction of my subdivision and area subdivisions along Erbsville Rd. and in Kitchener. This is something I witnessed on a daily basis just driving around my area and to my husband's work. It is a developer's legal responsibility to maintain the safety and environmental standards on their development sites. Their duty is to oversee the actions of the various housing companies and monitor that standards are being met. Currently, the city and the ministers only step in when formal complaints are made but without a delegated officer doing the inspections, it doesn't get reported. Housing inspectors cannot make reports of this nature because it isn't in their jurisdiction to do so.
What we need is a dedicated person from the region or province that is qualified to police both the environmental and safety laws on area construction sites on a regular basis because it is obvious that the area Development companies are not doing their job.
I went to the media at this point and did interviews with both the KW Record and the Waterloo Chronicle in regards to the infringements I saw. The Article for the Chronicle was titled. "Developers Negligence Poses Many Risks" and it was written by Bob Vrbanac and published on Wednesday March 23 2005. The Record's story was called "Put Environment and Safety First, Developers Told written by Bob Burtt and published on March 29 2005.
I spoke to Waterloo City Council and a representative from Eastforest Homes in regards the infringements. In regards to the unharnessed roofers the policy for Eastforest homes is "If a worker is caught without their harness, we will send them home immediately. It is not acceptable."
Background Info
I have gone to Waterloo City Council in regards to various environmental infringements during the creation of my subdivision of Columbia Forest. We had a standing body of water at the base of White Elm over 4ft deep. It was filled with insulation, building materials and even tadpoles because this "Lake" as residents called it, was here for over a year. The area of the lake was so long we all just assumed it was a storm management pond of some sort. This area was not fenced at all and it was located directly across the street from the only completed kiddy park we had. I spent most of my summers telling kids to get away from the water. Kids loved to walk in the water, pitch rocks in it and catch the tadpoles. When I told Waterloo City Council they drained this water immediately.
Beside the children's park on the corner of Butternut and White Elm, we had loose brick, plywood and piles of brick stored directly beside the park. Again I spent hours and hours telling children to get away from the building materials. The local children used to make forts with the brick and roof it with the scraps of plywood. On one occasion they actually built a BBQ inside one of the forts. When I notified the city all the building debris was removed for the sake of community safety.
I was curious so I went to Laurel Village to inspect the new housing area to see if the same things were being repeated. I decided to speak to one of the folks who were outside with their three year old child. The yard was not completed and there was debris, including a half buried 2 by 4 sticking out of their yard with rusty nails in it. I asked the folks how long their yard has been this way. They said for about a year. The condition of the yard was so poor they couldn't allow their child to play outside at all. They were in the same position I was when I moved into my new subdivision. New home owners are often not aware of their rights. They don't know that they don't have to live with hazardous debris surrounding them. They are entitled to safe green spaces for their children to play in. They don't have to put up with environmental spills or hazards that can put their children at risk.
Here are just some of the speeches and letters that I presented to various people in regards to these infringements.
Waterloo City Council Apr.2004 PresentationWaterloo City Council March 2005 Presentation
Regarding West Side District Plan (Letter)Letter to Environment Minister
If you spot Infringements, here are the folks to contact.
When making a report, please have the address, date, time, the subdivision name and the name of the company if possible.
To report incidents of water pollution, spills and illegal waste disposal as they are occuring or soon after contact: Ms. Tina Dufresne at the Ministry of the Environment (Guelph Office) toll free at 1-800-265-8658 during normal business hours or Ministry of Environment's Spills Action Center (24 hours) at 1-800-268-6060
To report unsafe working conditions including unharnessed roofers & labor law infringements contact: Ministry of Labor Office 1-877-202-0008. (anonymity will be protected)
To report incidents of unsafe fuel or propane tank storage please notify these two safety authorities: The Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) at 1-877-682-8772
The Fire Prevention Division of the Waterloo Fire Department at 884-2121 for Waterloo,741-2495 for Kitchener or 621-0754 for Cambridge.
To report drinking from workers on construction sites, contact your local police Department immediately.
If you think your community is dealing with unsafe storage of building debris or potential safety hazards please don't hesitate to contact your local ward rep and your city's development services department. They can make a difference.
07:45 Posted in SLAPP | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
11/13/2005
SLAPP news for Sunday, November 13, 2005
Alert for: slapp
Ontario
mom faces $2M libel suit over website
CTV.ca
- Canada
... is "just a way of SLAPPing me.".
SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.
"The plaintiff's goal in a SLAPP ...
See all stories on this topic
Anti-SLAPP
Statute May Provide for Attorneys Fees in Trade Secret ...
Mondaq News Alerts - World
...
illegally obtained material deemed "privileged and confidential"
and "attorney work product" is protected from suit by California's
anti-SLAPP provision if ...
Are
politicians too SLAPP happy?
Forest
Park Review - Oak Park,IL,USA
... After reading the headline
my first reaction was that this is a SLAPP suit. SLAPP is
an acronym for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. ...
Save
the right to criticize
Philadelphia
Inquirer - Philadelphia,PA,USA
... Camille George (D.,
Clearfield) that would broaden the scope of the state's anti-SLAPP
law. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
...
Judge
tosses haunted house owner's 'Amityville' defamation suit
CourtTV - New York,NY,USA
...
defendants, saying that the film was a work of fiction protected under
the First Amendment, and that it fell within California's anti-SLAPP
(Strategic Lawsuits ...
$1.026
million verdict divvies blame to two doctors
Kansas City Star - MO,USA
... So it's noteworthy
when defendants in a SLAPP slap back and even more noteworthy when
they win. Especially when they win big time. ...
Ruling
is historic
McCook Daily Gazette
- McCook,Nebraska,USA
We are talking about Nebraska's first
SLAPP-Back case, which resulted in a Keith County jury's finding
of intimidation against Furnas County Farms, Sand ...
Thompson
not being investigated over Penny Arcade feud...yet
GameSpot - USA
... happy result of that
is that The Bar's insurance carrier had to pay me money damages for
The Bar's having taken the bait offered by the SLAPP bar complainants.
...
An
Open Letter To The Missouri City Mayor
FortBendNow
- Richmond,TX,USA
... As my family's funds are drained,
as targets defending in this "SLAPP" (Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation) case by your Houston backers ...
Senator
Clinton Wins a Round In Coast Court
New
York Sun (subscription) - New York,NY,USA
... judges,
who heard arguments in Paul's civil suit last Friday, ruled that the
trial judge misinterpreted one provision of the so-called anti-Slapp
law, under ...
15:55 Posted in SLAPP | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
Fwd: Taking Responsibility
 | |||
| |||