By Bill Robinson, Rideau Institute, March 5, 2010

(Ottawa) The new federal budget commits the Harper government to going ahead with its planned increases in military spending in both the coming year (fiscal year 2010-11) and the next, after which, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says, the size of planned increases in military spending will be reduced for two years. The military budget is then projected to resume the upward track promised in the Harper government’s so-called Canada First Defence Strategy.

As Flaherty explains it, “Budget 2010 reduces growth in National Defence’s budget by $525 million in 2012–13 and $1 billion annually beginning in 2013–14. Defence spending will continue to grow but more slowly than previously planned.” The Finance Minister’s chart, above, illustrates his explanation.

But for the time being at least, the government’s spending plans are about as clear as mud. For starters, Flaherty’s chart excludes incremental spending on Afghanistan and other operations, such as Olympics security. The actual level of military spending is thus higher than shown in the chart, although that extra amount is likely to decline as the Afghanistan mission winds down (assuming nothing comparable takes its place).

And that’s not all. While the chart shows a 2009-10 spending level of slightly more than $18 billion, the budgetary Main Estimates give a figure of $19.2 billion for that fiscal year – still not including the costs of Afghanistan and other operations. You have to go to the 2009-10 Report on Plans and Priorities to find the actual level of 2009-10 spending, which, once Afghanistan, other missions, and sundry supplementary top-ups are added, is expected to total more than $21 billion.

The military spending figure for the coming fiscal year, according to the Flaherty chart, will be about $19 billion, or nearly one billion more than in 2009-10. Meanwhile, the Main Estimates put the 2010-11 figure at $21.1 billion, or nearly $2 billion more than reported in the 2009-10 Main Estimates.

So are we looking at a 5% increase in military spending this year or a 10% increase? It’s likely that the 2010-11 Main Estimates figure includes most or all of expected incremental operations spending, whereas the 2009-10 figure did not, so the increase is probably closer to 5%, but we don’t yet know that for sure. The 2010-11 Report on Plans and Priorities will give us the most complete and reliable figure, but that document hasn’t been released yet. It may be out later this month.

In the meantime, count on the usual suspects to call the government’s promise to reduce the rate of increase in the military budget a couple of years from now a cut in the budget. The rest of us can wonder how the 2.7% annual increases promised in the Canada First Defence Strategy turned into something that looks more like a 5% (or greater) increase in this year of supposed restraint.

Bill Robinson is a defence analyst and senior adviser of the Rideau Institute.

Lecture on the history of racism and anti-Semitism in Winnipeg by Professor Helmut – Harry Loewen of the Department of Sociology, University of Winnipeg in conjunction with B’nai Brith.

Date: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Time: 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM
Location: Berney Theatre, 123 Doncaster Street, Winnipeg, MB, R3B 2N2
Contact: Stan Carbone, Phone: 204-477-7467, scarbone@jhcwc.org

CALL FOR PROPOSALS – Building Bridges, Crossing Borders: Gender, Identity, and Security in the Search for Peace

The 8th Annual Conference of the Peace and Justice Studies Association
October 1-2, 2010
Menno Simons College and the Global College
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Submission Deadline — March 15, 2010

The PJSA Program Committee invites submissions for the 2010 Annual Meeting of the PJSA, to be held on the campuses of Menno Simons College and The Global College, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, on Friday October 1 and Saturday October 2, 2010.

We welcome proposals from a wide range of disciplines, professions, and perspectives that address issues related to gender, identity, and security in the search for peace. We seek to explore how security can be re-imagined in the search for a more just world; to examine the many dimensions of gender and identity that must be addressed in the search for peace and justice; and to analyze the complex inter-weaving of all these issues in an evolving world-wide context of global change. We especially welcome contributions that explore the legacy of great women peace advocates in the tradition of Jane Addams, and look forward to proposals and initiatives of various forms that reflect on and assess the legacy, impact, and future of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women and Peace.

Submissions may propose offerings of various forms: research papers, presentations, round-tables, panels, hands-on workshops, posters, and creative works using a variety of media to address gender, identity, and
security in the search for peace. Our goal is to create a stimulating environment where academics and activists, educators, practitioners, and artists can build bridges and cross borders. The conference will invite
participants to engage with three avenues of exploration: papers and presentations, hands-on practitioner workshops, and a youth summit. It seeks to create an environment in which attendees will have multiple opportunities to meet and dialogue in both formal and informal settings.

The deadline for all proposal submissions is March 15, 2010. Abstracts are to be no more than 150 words. Those greatly exceeding this limit will not be printed in the program. Individuals must be members to have their papers accepted into the program. All proposals must be submitted electronically through the PJSA website.

Join local, national and international practitioners and students of peace, justice and development at the second annual Canadian School of Peacebuilding to be held at Canadian Mennonite University (CMU) in Winnipeg, MB, June 14 to July 2, 2010.

Three 5-day sessions, each with two or three courses running concurrently, will be offered for academic credit or for training for practitioners.

SESSION I – JUNE 14-18

Poets, Prophets and Music of Social Justice
Instructors: John Bell, with Irma Fast Dueck

Our Contested Food System: Cultivating a Just Peace
In collaboration with Canadian Foodgrains Bank
Instructors: Cathy Campbell, Martin Entz, Kenton Lobe and Ray Vander Zaag

A Cree Perspective on Non-Violence
Instructor: Ovide Mercredi

SESSION II – JUNE 21-25

Agents of Change in Intractable Conflicts: Lessons from Middle East Peacebuilding
Instructor: Marc Gopin

Peace Skills Practice
Instructor: Karen Ridd

Mennonite Approaches to Peace and Justice
In collaboration with Mennonite Central Committee Canada
Instructor: Harry Huebner

SESSION III – JUNE 28-JULY 2

International Perspectives on Restorative Justice
Instructor: Howard Zehr

Thriving in a Firestorm: Congregational Peacebuilding
In collaboration with Congregational Peacebuilding Partners
Instructor: Lois Edmund

For more information or to apply, go to www.cmu.ca/csop or e-mail csop@cmu.ca.

The first Israeli Apartheid Week in Winnipeg will have nearly a full week of panel discussions and cultural events, from Monday, March 8th to Friday, March 12th.

MONDAY, MARCH 8th
Women & Apartheid
2:00 PM – Panel Discussion
224 University Centre, University of Manitoba

TUESDAY, MARCH 9th
Israel as an Apartheid State
2:00 PM – Panel Discussion
217 University Centre, University of Manitoba

“Is There A New Antisemitism?”
7:00 PM
Carol Shields Auditorium, Millennium Library

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10th
Is the topic of Israel, as an Apartheid State, a Legitimate Subject of Discussion on University Campuses?
12:30 PM – Presentation by Mordecai Briemburg
Concourse Lounge, University College, University of Manitoba

Evening of Entertainment and Solidarity
7:00 PM – Spoken Word/Hip-hop event
Degree’s Diner, 3rd Floor, University Centre, University of Manitoba

FRIDAY, MARCH 12th
Canadian Apartheid and Indigenous Solidarity – 2:00 PM
224 University Centre, University of Manitoba

Contact Info
For more information, visit IAW 2020-Winnipeg or contact Brian, Media Spokesperson, at iaw.winnipeg@gmail.com.

Fanning the Flames of Another War in the Caucasus?

By Eric Walberg, Counterpunch, March 5-6, 2010

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world expected a new era of peace and disarmament. But what happened? Instead of diminishing, US and NATO presence throughout Europe, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Central Asia rapidly increased, and the world experienced one war after another — in the Caucasus, Yugoslavia , Iraq and Afghanistan , each one hotter and more horrible than the last. And we are far from seeing the end to the savagery now unleashed by the anti-communist jinni.

Though a pokey backwater for the past millennium, the south Caucasus is now a key battleground, the “critical strategic crossroads in 21st century geopolitics”, writes analyst Rick Rozoff, the focus of ambitious energy transit projects and a military corridor reaching from Western Europe to East Asia, controlled (or not so “controlled”) from Washington and Brussel.

Surely peace in this vital region should be a paramount goal for both Russia and the West, for their own reasons — Russia because, well because it is there and its cultural and economic links are vital to Russia ’s well being. The US, if only to benefit economically, since peace everywhere is a boon to economic well being and logically should be blessed by the world’s superpower, whether or not it is a benevolent one.

But this logic has been betrayed — egregiously, in the case of US abetting Georgia in its disastrous war against Russia in 2008, less obviously in likely covert US and other involvement in Chechnya and its neighbours, as well as in the Armenia-Azerbaijan stand-off over Nagorno Karabakh.

Article continues . . .

U.S. Tightens Missile Shield Encirclement Of China And Russia

by Rick Rozoff, Global Research, March 4, 2010

So far this year the United States has succeeded in inflaming tensions with China and indefinitely holding up a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia through its relentless pursuit of global interceptor missile deployments.

On January 29 the White House confirmed the completion of a nearly $6.5 billion weapons transfer to Taiwan which includes 200 advanced Patriot anti-ballistic missiles. Earlier in the same month it was reported that Washington is also to provide Taiwan with eight frigates which Taipei intends to equip with the Aegis Combat System that includes the capacity for ship-based Standard Missile-3 interceptors.

The Aegis sea-based component of the expanding U.S. interceptor missile system already includes Japan, South Korea and Australia, and with Taiwan added China would be justified in being apprehensive.

On February 28 the U.S. House and Senate foreign affairs committees permitted the “sale to Taiwan of missiles, helicopters and ships valued at about $6.4 billion” despite weeks of protests from China. “The U.S. Defense Department wants to sell Taiwan the most advanced Patriot anti-missile system….The system, valued at $2.8 billion, would add to Taiwan’s network of 22 missile sites around the country….” [1]

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Qin Gang recently stated “The responsibility for the current difficulties in China-U.S. relations [belongs] completely to the U.S. side” for failing to recognize and respect China’s “core interests.” [2]

If the proposed placement of U.S. missile shield components in Poland, the Czech Republic, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Alaska and elsewhere were explained by alleged missile threats emanating from Iran and North Korea, the transfer of U.S. Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles to Taiwan – and, as was revealed in January, 35 miles from Russian territory in Poland – represents the crossing of a new threshold. The Patriots in Taiwan and Poland and the land- and sea-based missiles that will follow them are intended not against putative “rogue states” but against two major nuclear powers, China and Russia.

Article continues . . .

For this and other articles by Rick Rozoff, visit Stop NATO.

by talkingsticktv, February 26, 2010

Interview with Jeff Halper, Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and author of Obstacles to Peace: A Re-framing of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict and An Israeli In Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel.

Avatars protest Israeli occupation in Bil’in

by Leslie Dreyer, Art Threat, March 4, 2010

Protesters against the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the West Bank barrier wall take a more theatrical approach in Bil’in. On February 12, 5 Israeli, Palestinian and international demonstrators dressed as James Cameron-style Avatars marched towards the barrier, which has absorbed approximately 60% of this Palestinian village’s farmland, and were, per usual, met with tear gas and sound bombs. Though sporting blue painted bodies, pointy ears and long tails didn’t seem to faze the Israeli Defense Force, the tactics generated more media attention than usual for this weekly action.

Article continues . . .

Towards America’s Electronic, Troop-less Wars

Future U.S Wars will involve Massive Use of Drones

A RQ-1 Predator from the 46th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron lands at Tallil Air Base, Iraq on Jan. 20, 2004. (UPI Photo/Suzanne M. Jenkins/AFIE)

by Prof. Marc W. Herold, Global Research, March 1, 2010

Future U.S wars in the Third World will involve massive use of drones to police the territory, employ local satrap forces (like those of Karzai’s Afghan Army) and once the territory has been pacified sufficiently, the deployment of “Government Ready-to-Rule (GRR)” kits.

The drones provide the critical and the weak link: critical insofar as they represent the ultimate American-style war where only the “Others” (opponents and civilians) die but weak insofar as this type of warfare only works against an opponent without any anti-drone/aircraft capability. In other words, this type of technological warfare can only be carried out upon weak opponents lacking independent industrial capacities (not against China, Russia, and India).

This approach represents the culmination of disconnecting the delivery of deadly force – the rain of Hellfire missiles – upon the Others and incurring no human (physical or psychological – PTSD) costs. Or put in other terms, it represents the quintessential American way of “solving” problems with technological short-cuts, a military effort begun in 1942 with the Allied fire-bombing of German cities.

The current American war in Afghanistan is a harbinger of what is to come, America’s electronic, troop-less war.

Article continues . . .