Alternatives International

Oil in Canada

Kathryn Rockwell — 2013-08-02T01:28:08Z

The construction of the Keystone pipeline and the exploitation of the Alberta oil sands mark a drastic change in Canadian environmental policy. Once an example of moral leadership on ozone, clean energy and sustainability matters, Canada is on it's way to becoming a petro state.

Once a strong proponent of the Kyoto agreement, Canada shocked the world when it withdrew in 2012 under Stephen Harper, who described the agreement as “a socialist scheme”, and a “job-killing economy-destroying” accord. Canada's growing dependence on petroleum has resulted in numerous environmental bills being killed, and existing environmental laws being dismantled. Anyone opposing the movement such as indigenous peoples and conservationists have been undermined and ignored.

In a controversial leaked document, the Harper administration wrote "To succeed we will need to pursue political relationships in tandem with economic interests even where political interests or values may not align." It would appear this new strategy is in full swing in regard to Canada's oil deals with China.

Presently oil and gas count for a quarter of Canada's export revenue, which is why the administration is so keen to silence any opponents. The government has stopped funding the Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, dissolved the Environment Canada's Adaptation to Climate Change Research Group, and fired the chief science advisor. Since 2008 the administration have blocked all media requests for the 23, 000 federal scientists.

When a government feels as though it must ignore and suppress scientific evidence opposing reliance on a notoriously volatile and unstable resource, citizens have reason to be concerned. Yet three quarters of Canadians support oil sand development. According to Foreign Policy's Andrew Nikiforuk, this is because the Canadian government has spent $100 million on pro-oil ad campaigns convincing the public that exporting oil will lead to resource development. Furthermore the incentive of cheaper oil is a factor, as oil prices have increased five-fold over the past decade.

Presently Canada produces 1.7 million barrels of oil a day, which will have generated revenue of $120 billion by the year 2020. The Canadian government has gained 40% of the revenue in corporate taxes, and the Harper administration is hoping to produce 5 million barrels of oil a day by 2030.

The Keystone XL pipeline is essential in achieving this goal. It will provide easy delivery to the United States, which is desperate for an oil-providing ally. However, the project, costing $5.5 billion, is estimated to increase carbon emissions by 935 million metric tons over a 50-year period.

On March 29 2013, Keystone XL faced one of what will certainly be many mishaps with an oil spill in Mayflower Arkansas. In this scenario access to the site was forbidden to journalist, and both the US and Canadian government have made efforts to hush up the incident.

While the oil revenue will undoubtedly boost Canada's economy, it is time for the public to reflect on what they are willing to risk, and what kind of state they want to become.

"The administration is getting ever more...

Kathryn Rockwell — 2013-08-02T01:27:45Z

"The administration is getting ever more angry and doing everything they can to break our hunger strike. Honestly, I wish I was dead."

Judging from the harrowing Guardian interview with Guantanamo detention camp inmate Shaker Aamer, the Obama administration is stooping to new human rights lows in an attempt to break the hunger strike, and then men participating in it. The strike that began with six inmates on March 4 has grown to 105 out of the 166 prisoners. These 105 men have been driven to such despair that they are willing to endure starvation, and the brutality of the guards that accompanies it.

The despair of these men is understandable. Out of the 166 detainees, 152 are non-high value. Only six prisoners are facing military commission, 80 are being held with insufficient evidence for conviction, and 86 have actually been cleared for release but still remain in confinement with no end in sight. Therefore, as a reporter asked president Obama at a press conference last week, “Is it any surprise, really, that they would prefer death rather than have no end in sight to their confinement?”

The strike has put Obama under more pressure, as six years have passed since her promised to close the detention center, and no progress or inmate transfers have been made. Gitmo presents a difficult situation for Obama and congress. Both want to keep the inmates in a safe hold, and are reluctant to house dangerous enemy combatants on the American mainland. Furthermore, the United States have instituted an embargo on transfers to Yemen, where 90 of the inmates are from. These prisoners remain stuck in limbo until the US government can think of somewhere else to store them.

Not only has the strike successfully brought attention to the neglected political issue, it has also brought attention to the ethics of the appropriate response to a hunger strike. Is it better to let them die or to force-feed the inmates on strike?

“Well, I don't—I don't want these individuals to die,” President Obama said at a press conference. Despite Obama's apparent sympathy for the plight of the prisoners, his administration has ordered increasingly brutal tactics to attempt to break the strike. The process of force-feeding seems brutal enough, having a tube forcefully inserted up one's nose, yet the guards have been instructed to do whatever they can to make the experience even more unpleasant.

According to Shaker Aamer, prison guards have been instructed to introduce metal tipped feeding tubes which are to be forced into inmates stomachs twice a day, causing inmates to vomit all over themselves, and physicians have stopped wearing nametags so that they cannot be held accountable for their unethical treatment of patients.

Both the American Medical Association and the American Constitution view force feeding as a violation of medical ethics. Medical intervention must always be the patients' choice. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International have called upon Guantanamo medical staff to refuse force-feeding the inmates and consider it a human rights violation.

Amnesty international also released statement saying, “These gruesome new details show just how bad things are in Guantanamo. The whole thing is at breaking point. Clearly the US military is under enormous pressure and doing everything it can to hurt the men and break the hunger strike.”

As observers and human rights supporters, we can only hope that the hunger strike inspires speedy action resulting in the closing of the controversial camp. This will close a decade long dark chapter in United States political history.

Crossing the Line: Will the United States Intervene in Syria?

Kathryn Rockwell — 2013-06-02T22:43:37Z

Despite its best efforts, the Obama administration is sliding down a slippery slope towards intervention in Syria. A humanitarian crisis that has cost between 80, 000 and 120, 000 lives, and produced over 2.5 million refugees requires decisive foreign policy action.

The Obama administration has provided the Syrian opposition over six hundred and fifty million dollars in non-military aid. However there is rising pressure to intervene by either ordering air strikes on government targets, arming the opposition, or establishing a no-fly zone to protect the rebels fighting against President Assad.

Interventionists argue that unless the US acts militarily, it will lose global credibility, the death toll in Syria will rise further, and the region will become destabilized, producing a greater chance of militant Islamists seizing power. Pressure has been mounting on the international and domestic levels. Republicans have been particularly vocal about criticizing the administration's inaction. In a senate meeting concerning Syria, John McCain asked, “How many more have to die before you recommend military action?”

Rumors that the Assad regime has crossed Obama's “red line” by using chemical weapons have greatly increased pressure to act decisively. The administration has been intentionally vague, declaring the systematic use of chemical weapons to be “a game changer,” but stopping short of committing to military force. According to a source from the State Department, “No one wanted to say that Assad had crossed the line, because no one wants to deal with it.”

While the Assad regime is known to possess chemical weaponry, there are conflicting reports of whether or not the weapons have been used. Three major US allies: Britain, France and Israel, have concluded that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on several occasions. The US administration has declined to join the analysis, announcing a lack of conclusive evidence in the findings. The administration undoubtedly wishes to avoid repeating the mistake of intervening in Iraq on the basis of faulty intelligence.

The United States is currently burdened with over a $1 trillion debt from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to a recovering economy. There is no shortage of domestic issues that need addressing, so the risk that public support will sour towards another several year military commitments is likely.

With the waning hope of the rebels forming a cohesive counter regime, Obama is left with three unattractive military options.

The first is to erect a no fly zone. If successful, this would reduce further human rights abuses and civilian deaths, by preventing chemical and non-chemical attacks, in addition to preventing the conflict from spilling over and destabilizing the region. However, assuming the Assad regime would be unwilling to relinquish its air force, this would require a large-scale military investment to sustain the operation. The Syrian air defense has been designed to repel Israeli attacks and is much more complex and dense than proponents believe, and attacking it would result in large numbers of American and Syrian casualties.

The second option is to arm the rebels. Britain, France, and vocal Republicans are proponents of this strategy. However, Obama has made it clear that he has little confidence in the rebels. He believes them to be ideologically fractured, lacking in a coherent structure, uncontrollable, and in conflict with one another. Obama fears that arming the rebels could result in a rapid collapse of state institutions, and that the weapons could fall into the hands of Islamist extremists. The administration's worst nightmare is that hostile Islamists could turn Syria into a platform for attacks on Israel with access to chemical weapons, turning the conflict into a region-wide disaster.

The final and least attractive option for the administration is sending troops to seize chemical weaponry facilities. Putting boots on the ground is something the administration wishes to avoid at all costs. This would be enormously expensive, result in loss of life, and would be very unpopular at a domestic level, and quite frankly, by the looks of their track record, largely unsuccessful. The closest the administration would want to come to sending forces, is deploying military personnel with the purpose of training militants, which they have already done in Jordan.

In the Syrian crisis, there are no easy answers. Obama must find a way to deliver a stern and credible threat to the Assad regime to prevent the use of chemical weaponry, without getting sucked into another war. This means he will probably be pressured into choosing the least worst of the three options, arming the rebels. While this is hardly the most effective solution, it will satiate critics for a short while, until things takes a spectacular turn for the worst. One can only hope that this option will work out better for the United States and Syria, than it did in Afghanistan.