The BBC has an excellent service called BBC Monitoring that gathers information in over 100 languages around the world and translates them into English. Unfortuately, it’s not free, but they do include information from those sources in many articles.

Yesterday I ran across this article on Iranian bloggers who are discussing the nuclear issue between Iran and the West.

As the tension mounts and the issue is sent to the UN Security Council. It is interesting, and I believe incredibly important, to hear what Iranians have to say on the issue.

They are, after all, the ones who would be suffering most if a military strike were to proceed against Iran.

The vast majority of the excerpts provided by the BBC are “positive”, ie.. they agree generally with the Western view that Iran is in the wrong… unfortunately, without having access to BBC Monitoring itself, it’s impossible to say whether these reactions are indicative of all Iranians, or even of all Iranian bloggers. So as always, chew some salt if you are so inclined.

Each block quoted below is from a different individual.

Also note that these bloggers *are* taking a certain amount of risk by publishing these comments on a publicly available site.

Why is it that our planes crash, our buildings collapse at the slightest tremor, our cars burst into flames, we don’t have even a half-standard football stadium in the entire country, but when it comes to nuclear energy, it’s a national issue?!… Anyway, it smells of war. God help us. Our people have suffered a lot over these past 100 years.

…

What has brought the government to this point today is that it’s realised that it’s not capable of fulfilling even 55% of its campaign slogans… so it wants to deflect domestic public opinion by creating constant international crises in order to pretend that it’s foreigners who are preventing the government from fulfilling its promises.

…

What’s the world to do in the face of this problem? Like most Iranians, I’m opposed to any kind of solution that inflicts suffering on the people.

…

I’ve talked to a lot of Britons and Europeans too. They too say that it’s Iran’s right, because Israel has this technology too.

…

I doubt it’ll be possible… after referral, Iran will cease its voluntary cooperation measures and inspectors will probably not be allowed into Iran. Who says Iran is different from Iraq?

…

Today, my American professor told me: You Iranians should count yourselves lucky that we attacked Iraq, because if we hadn’t attacked them, we’d have attacked you by now!

…

God help us. And it’s only been five months [since Ahmadinejad became president]. We still have three years and six months to go - if it isn’t extended.

Powerful words.

The International Community, and the US and Israel in particular, need to think long and hard about how any sanctions or military action would affect the Iranian people. We saw with Iraq that sanctions did little to improve the political situation, but it *did* stop the nuclear/wmd threat from growing. We have all seen the result of “regime change” by force. Luckily, I simply don’t see that as a possibility while the US is still 20,000+ men deep in Iraq.

It seems inevitable now, especially now that China and Russia have softened their position. Looks like this is due to some hard US Intelligence on a weapons programs… evidence that was good enough to cause the Iranians to hand over sensitive documents pertaining to research into forging nuclear warheads

The real wildcard here is the Iranian response to sanctions and/or a strike. Is Ahmadinejad more or less likely to respond with force than Saddam was? Saddam knew his limitations. I’m not sure Ahmadinejad has quite the same modus-operandi. Would he launch a response of his own in the form of a strike on Israel? Would he attempt to block oil shipments from Iraq, or the Persian Gulf… thus throwing the world economy into potential turmoil?

I must stress. Iran is *not* Iraq. Iran has many many more levers to pull and no matter how much “better” our Armed Forces are… the effects of an attack on Iran on the World economy would be swift, and likely severe.

In my last post on this topic, I focused on how Canada can use the Law of the Sea to assert it’s sovereignty over the Artic and the Northwest Passage. This has been talked about ad nauseum, which is why I’m shifting gears, and proposing what might be both both a much simpler, and yet more complex and controversial solution in terms of the impliations for Canada as a whole.

My proposal is this.

It is time, now that the Dominion of Canada is over 100 years old, to consider enshrining more of our land… more of what we consider to be “Canada”… into our constitution.

It is time for the Yukon, North West, and Nunavut Territories to be the 11th, 12th, and 13th province respectively.

Even though every Innu who lives in Resolute, Nunavut is a Canadian citizen by birth.. the very fact that they reside in a territory rather than a province means that their existance as a fixture in Canada is enshrined in no specific document, and the land beneath their feet is controlled in the end, not by legislators in Iqaluit, but in the Prime Ministers Office in Ottawa.

By the same token, the fact that the primary authority over Canada’s northern territories is so far removed from those residents of Resolute or Alert… that their claim on that land is that much weaker.

Of course, in practice and in common Canadian discourse many powers are delegated to the Commissioners and Premiers of the Territories, but the fact remains. Unlike the other 10 provinces that make up southern Canada. The 3 territories have nothing to permanently enshrine them and their lands and seas as a part of Canada.

There is no doubt that as development continues in the North, and as the climate warms, the population will grow with it, so I don’t believe population to be of any special importance.

What is sure is that we “southern” Canadians are starting to really notice our Northern brothers and sisters and as that awareness grows we should ensure that the citizens of Canada living North of 60 have the same opportunities, rights and privileges as those South of 60. That means more representation in the Senate, full protection under the Canadian Charter and a stronger, more independant local government to represent the needs and issues of residents of the Northern provinces.

Dealing again with the sovereignty issues, the provincial boundaries, including maritime boundaries could be “set in stone” between the provinces as Legislation in the Parliament of Canada and in the various Constitutional documents (the Newfoundland Act being a good guide)

Permanent fixtures represent easy ways to ensure sovereignty and a provincial structure in the North would provide both the local and international structure to prove sovereignty over the lands of the North.

Paul Weyrich, a conservative at a think tank called the Free Congress Foundation in Washington, DC had this to say about Canadians.

The people of Canada have become so liberal and hedonistic that the public ethic in the Country immediately could not reversed. It will take time. But with leadership it well may be possible to change the public ethic.

Why thank you Paul!

My pessimistic friend said… Harper could do almost nothing to encourage the Country to adopt a more reasonable view of the United States and to correct some premises of Cultural Marxism… such as same-sex marriage and abortion-on-demand.

To which CBC Online notes…

He does not say how these things are linked in his mind to Marxism, a doctrine better known for concepts of class warfare.

**ouch**
I think they didn’t get the “no-editorializing” memo (diktat?)… but 2 points to CBC anyway.

Again today, the issue of Canadian sovereignty over Arctic waters was raised by US Ambassador Wilkins, and subsequently dismissed by acting-Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“The United States defends its sovereignty and the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty,” Harper told reporters in Ottawa. “It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States.”

Well, I can agree with our new PM there.

“There’s no reason to create a problem that doesn’t exist,” Wilkins said as he took part in a forum at the University of Western Ontario in London.

“We don’t recognize Canada’s claims to those waters… Most other countries do not recognize their claim.”

Who exactly is “creating a problem”?

During the election, Harper made a rather outlandish claim that he would spend over $7 billion to build 3 armed heavy icebreakers as well as a deep sea port at Iqaluit (Google Map) and an array of underwater sensors. Now I wouldn’t necessarily support such a huge buildup in our North. But there is, absolutely, a need here to address the sovereignty issue especially as the climate in the North warms up and the ice breaks.

There are a number of political steps Canada can take first in order to stake it’s claim. If we combine the following with an increased focus on development and security in the North in the form of support for economic growth in the North and an increase in Canadian Forces patrols in the area we shouldn’t have to spend billions on ships that will spend most of their lives in port and mythical sensors.

The first step is relatively simple.

Canada must officially ratify the UN Convention on Law of the Sea of 1982

Tthere have already been government reports prepared on the issue but they don’t necessarily address the issue fully. According to the UN, Canada has only declared its’ intention to formally ratify the convention and related treaties. It is time to take the first step towards asserting our sovereignty by signing the document that would give our country a mechanism to *prove* and enforce our sovereignty.

The United States, Russia, Denmark, UK and many other major countries have also not made motions but as yet have not formally agreed to the convention. One notable exception is Japan, which has ratified the Convention, though not the Fishing treaty.

So what is the Law of the Seas?What can it do for Canada? Well, it addresses many issues relating to the 12 nautical mile zone extending from a State’s coastline.

Some important articles from the convention emphasis added:

Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles…

waters on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form part of the internal waters of the State.

Where the establishment of a straight baseline in accordance with the method set forth in article 7 has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which had not previously been considered as such, a right of innocent passage as provided in this Convention shall exist in those waters.

These articles deal explicitly with the underlying “problem” that Ambassador Wilkins is referring to.

There are a number of points within the Northwest Passage where the waters between islands in the Arctic Archipelago or between them and the Continental mainland are less than, or very close to 24 nautical miles (12×2) across.

A few of those points are… links are to Google Maps, zoom them out to see whereabouts in the Arctic they are:

Starting around 50 miles into the Northwest Passage West of Baffin Bay.

There are many very tight spots (less than 5 miles) particularly near Resolute that would be difficult to navigate, especially for large tanker traffic including here, here, and here.

There are more tight spots on the Western end of the passage as well including here

In short, there are plenty of points where Canada can and should assert it’s sovereignty and where “innocent passage” rules would apply to commercial and military traffic.

Here is how “innocient passage” is breached.

Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
(i) any fishing activities;
(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag.

Foreign nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or noxious substances shall, when exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea, carry documents and observe special precautionary measures established for such ships by international agreements.

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

And finally.. since the Arctic islands are an Archipelago, we can likely apply the relevant section the Law of the Sea…

An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1.

The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles.

That easily covers the Baffin Island Archipelago.

By fully ratifying and implementing the Law of the Seas, Canada can make a statement, both on it’s sovereignty and as a leader in recognizing International Law.

I’ll publish Part 2, dealing with the Provincial creationist aspect, tomorrow.

Lots of economic numbers out there today. The most important for me being from the Chinese, Indian, and of course Canadian spheres.

First, Canada. The CBC is reporting the Bank of Canada’s new growth projection of 3.1% for 2006.. this is up from the projection in October.

The bank continues to judge that the Canadian economy is operating at its production capacity and will grow roughly in line with its production potential through 2007

Not much to say but “good” to that.

Of course, there are ups and downs.. in Canada, “downs” right now, are in the auto sector where the North American manufacturers continue to announce layoffs and plant closures. GM today announced it lost 8.6 Billion dollars in 2005. Luckily for Canadians, most of the layoffs are happening south of the border, and Toyota and other companies are picking up the slack

The “ups” are really really UP. And they mostly have to do with oil. Whether it’s Petro-Canada pumping out the profits… or Oil Sands Trust churning out the syncrude, continued historically high oil prices are nothing but good news for the Canadian oil industry.

But we should also not overlook the other resource industries.

Canada is a leading supplier of Copper, Zinc, Nickel and Lead

Canada is the third largest copper producer in the world, after Chile and the USA. It is also the world’s largest zinc and second largest nickel and lead producer.

So where is all that raw material going?

Well… it’s feeding the incredible economic appetites of both China and India as their economies continue to skyrocket.

China in particular is growing frantically, 9.9 percent in 2005. That places it ahead of the United Kingdom in 4th place of the largest economys in the world. (US, Japan and German being, 1-2-3) And it’s expected to continue growing at nearly that rate for the forseeable future.

“The whole economy is pretty healthy and strong,” said Zhu Min. “Domestic consumption really picked up and domestic construction is very strong.”

The insatiable demand of Chinese industries for base metals has helped drive up the price of commodities around the world. China is the world’s largest consumer of copper and zinc. Both metals hit record highs in Wednesday trading on the London Metals Exchange.

And they have a 5 year plan to continue growing as fast as they can… but they already see the related problems.

We are a populous country with little resources and a weak economic
foundation,” [Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan] continued. “In our vast country it will take years to build a decent life for our people.”

Their solution?

What else… CONSUME!

one of the most important shifts China signalled was something that many economists had already said would be necessary: the promotion of internal consumption to balance the country’s huge exports.

“We will rely on expanding the domestic market as there is huge untapped potential there,” the vice-premier said

As the Chinese ramp up their consume in order to “balance” their incredible industrial output will the world economy be able to keep up with the demand? I have my doubts. And what do they think about the environmental impacts of bringing 1.2 billion Chinese people into the age of consumption?

Well, they’re making semi-encouraging noises… but who knows what will really happen?

“We will build a stable, economical and clean energy system,” he
said. “Our use of coal will be clean and by 2020 we plan to have 15
per cent of our energy needs met by renewable methods, including
biomass and wind energy.”

And that of course leaves on the OTHER behemoth in the world economy, India.

The Indian economy grew by an equally impressive 7.5-8 percent last year and continues to show signs of emerging as a Global power right along with it’s Asian neighbour.

[Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of
Mahindra & Mahindra, Anand G. Mahindra] also challenged the common belief that in future “China will do the hardware and India will do the software,” prompted by the massive growth of the software industry in India.

“India will do both,” he said.

However, all of the panel members agreed that there would be more convergence than competition between China and India.

I would agree with that as well. And that “convergence” will also be in the form of military, diplomatic and energy policy. India and China are both looking to Iran to help sustain and feed their growing thirst for oil and natural gas. Will this cause India to drift away from the European and US sphere of influence? We’ll see.

Change is happening in our world. All of the things that I blog about on Murkyview are all related… from peak oil, to the Iraq war, to Middle East tensions, to the rise of South Asia, to the rise of South American leftists. It’s all related, and to say otherwise is to deny the incredibly complex world we live in.