Out of the Box

 “It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.”

  - Malcolm Forbes (unfortunately no relation)

“The future will be better tomorrow.”

  - Dan Quayle

We are frequently told these days that we must think out of the box to be creative or productive.  Maybe we should also be thinking outside the box on world affairs.  The following are a couple of examples to consider.

The Kurds

The Kurds should have their own homeland.  The Kurds currently have enclaves in three countries, Turkey, Iraq and Syria.  All three of those countries are hostile to the Kurds.  They have been persecuted by the governments of each of these countries. Sadam Hussein tried to exterminate them.  Turkey has waged an off and on again war against them for decades.  It is currently on again.  Syria has been equally as hostile. Nonetheless, the Kurds have been some of the most effective fighters against ISIS; so much so that they are the ones that the Canadian government has chosen to support with arms and military training.  Surely after so much persecution and war the Kurds deserve their own homeland.  

At the end of the First World War, self-determination was a big part of the peace process.  It was applied relentlessly throughout Europe to set boundaries for the countries and peoples to break up the large empires, particularly the Austro-Hungarian one.  But it was never applied anywhere else, particularly the Middle East.  So we now have these enclaves of minor ethnic groups like the Kurds who struggle to survive in countries that don’t recognize their uniqueness.  Maybe it’s time to support their efforts.

The Middle East

Since the end of the Ottoman Empire, the western countries have been insinuating themselves into the Middle East for position and resources.  Britain had to control Egypt in order to secure the Suez Canal.  France had to have a sphere of influence in Lebanon and Syria.  More recently, oil has been to big reason for controlling Middle Eastern countries.  And during the past 25 years, the west, led by the United States, have tried through various wars and military incursions to bring “western ideas” to the area, whether the Middles East wants them or not.  So now that we have messed up all of the other attempts and destroyed whatever stability was there, we are in yet another such fracas, this time against . . . who? Since all of our western efforts have produced nothing but chaos in the region, maybe it’s time to think out of the box.  

Why don’t all of the western countries, the US, Canada, Britain, France, and in particular Russia. just get out of the Middle East all together.  Would the various wars and civil wars continue?  Probably.  But the wars will be contained to the countries involved directly.  It will be up to them to solve the problems that we have bestowed upon them, but it will be done in their way.  Is it possible we might not like the results?  Possibly.  But there is a very good chance that when the people of the region get tired or broke by all the fighting, they just may come up with a way to assure some stability.  It might involve one country (Iran?) becoming the power broker in the region, but with a wish to maintain the peace.  It may lead to alliances, perhaps along religious lines.  It will give the terrorist factions less reason the attack western countries if for no other reason than they will have to defend themselves against other regional groups.  But what about the oil supply?  Those countries that have it will still have to sell it to maintain their own economies.  Are there risks?  Of course there are.  But our efforts to date have not been exactly risk free.  The US says that the fight against ISIS is going to be long, and in the end, to what purpose?  Get rid of one terrorist group and another will develop, probably more extreme than the last.  Left as is, this can become the war that never ends.  If it is going to end, it has to end by the efforts of those who live, work and die in the region, not by some outside imposed solution.

This will, of course, set me at odds with all of those who think we have to “solve” the Middle East and fight all of their wars for them.  But look where their efforts have led. 

I recognize that the first and second ideas are contradictory, but since I don’t think either will ever happen, the contradictions are irrelevant.

“Thus it can happen that military men, while skilfully planning their intricate operations and coordinating complicated manoeuvres, remain curiously blind in failing to perceive that it is the outcome of the war, not the outcome of the campaigns within it, that determines how well their plans serve the nation’s interests.  At the same time, senior statesmen may hesitate to insist that these beautifully planned campaigns be linked to some clear ideas for ending the war….”

 

From “Every War Must End” by Fred Ikle

Lebreton Flats Reality

Since the Ottawa Citizen will not print this letter to the editor, I’ll post it here instead with a few additions for clarity.  But first some background, particularly for those who don’t live in Ottawa.

40 years ago and area of downtown Ottawa, known as LeBreton Flats, was expropriated by the government, in the name of the National Capital Commission (NCC) who, apparently know better than the people who live here how Ottawa should look and work.  They tore down the houses and businesses that were there which, although kind of poor and run down, had been a lively neighbourhood for those lived and worked there.  The land then lay empty for 30 years while they made up their minds what to do with it.  The only worthwhile thing that was then done with it was that the Canadian War Museum was allowed to build a new facility there.  The only other thing that was done was to sell a small bit of the land to developer to build some uninspiring condominiums.  Last year, the NCC decided that they would seek proposals from private developers for developing most of the rest of the land. Four developers showed interest but only two actually submitted proposals.  The common factor in both the proposals was that each planned to build a hockey arena as a major item in their plan.  The rest of each plan included restaurants, condos and other retail outlets.  Opposition has been very vocal.

Recent letters to the editor have universally decried the proposals being put forward to the NCC for LeBreton Flats.  But all of these writers and the many others who have made suggestions are under some misunderstandings.  First, the ideas put forward by the two developers were business proposals not design competitions.  In making their proposals to develop that area, the developers are prepared to put forward their own money to build the buildings, walkways and parks.  But at the end of the day, they are expecting to make revenue from rents, fees and sales to pay for their investment.  The suggestions from readers, which include such things as art venues, large park area and other nice to have things, would not provide the kind of revenue that the developers need to make their proposals viable.  To those who point to world famous edifices such as the Eiffel Tower or the Washington Monument, they should understand that all of those were built with public money by their governments. 

So what are the alternatives?  For those who point out that the land was originally Algonquin land and must be respected as such, then the answer is obviously to turn it over to the First Nations and let them do whatever they want with it.  If, in fact, people want to make the place a world showpiece and hold an international design competition, then the only way it will be built is with public money, in other words, taxes. Noting that the cost for anything worthwhile will probably be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, who is going to be responsible for that payment?  Are the taxpayers of Ottawa ready to foot all or a good portion of the bill? Or will it all come out of the national purse?  The national purse, by the way, that is trying to find all of the money to pay for the many promises made by the government in the recent election. 

So the choice is clear.  Get the area of your dreams and pay for it, or let the developers develop it and collect the revenues to pay for it.

For those who think that this a only an Ottawa story, I would caution you that this can happen anywhere where the desire for “world-class” development is being considered.