International

Saturday November 6, 1999

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday November 6, 1999

Aussies don’t love Queen but will keep her

‘If you vote No, ” warned Senator Aden Ridgeway as campaigning for Australia’s Nov. 6 referendum on the monarchy drew to a close, “it will take at least another century before this country revisits the question.” If he is right, then Queen Elizabeth II of Australia will presumably be succeeded by King Charles III of Australia (and maybe Queen Camilla, if he eventually marries his long-time lover), then by King William V, followed perhaps by Queen Fiona I, King George VII … and so on all the way down to the end of the 21st century.

Ridgeway, an Aboriginal Australian, was mainly urging his own people not to be swayed by the fear-mongering and nit-picking that has sabotaged what once looked like an easy victory for those who wanted to dump the British monarchy and make Australia a republic. After the most recent polls, the Australian Broadcasting Commission estimated the odds against a republican victory at 100 to one.

Aborigines will mostly vote Yes, for they have little reason to love the British connection: it was British settlers who reduced them to a mere 2 per cent minority in their own country in only two centuries. The majority of more recent non-British immigrants to Australia (where 20 per cent of the population is foreign-born) will also vote Yes, as will around half of those Australians who are actually of British descent — but that is not enough.

British Monarchy Merch

It takes a two-thirds majority to change the Australian constitution, and the Yes vote, while it will probably be well above 50 per cent, is very unlikely to reach 66.6 per cent. The result will be the worst of all possible outcomes: Australia will be stuck with a British monarchy that a majority of its citizens have clearly shown by their votes that they do not want. How did such a normally sensible country get into this silly predicament?

There has been a republican movement in Australia since the end of the last century (mainly because the “British” settlers in Australia actually included many Irish with no love for Britain). It is purely an argument about symbols, of course, since the country has actually been fully independent for over half a century: Queen Elizabeth never interferes in the decisions of the Australian Governor-General, who is selected by the Australian government. But symbols matter greatly to some people.

Sensing in the early ’90s that the changing demography of Australia had eroded the old British ties, the republicans fixed on 2001, a century after the Commonwealth of Australia was created out of the six existing British colonies on the continent, as the date when the country should at last get its own head of state. A sympathetic Labour government promised a referendum on the issue — but politics has moved on, and it is being held under a conservative Liberal-Country Party government whose leader, Prime Minister John Howard, is deeply unsympathetic to the republican cause.

So Howard had the referendum question written as follows: “A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

With the bare-faced cheek for which Australian politicians are famous, Prime Minister John Howard urged the public to vote No last week not because they love their Queen (most of them don’t), but because the proposal to replace her with an appointed president is deeply flawed. Just as if he had not been personally responsible for the form of that proposal.

The republicans, for their part, are a fractious lot who fell right into Howard’s trap, splitting over the issue of whether the president should be appointed by parliament or directly elected by all 19 million Australians. The more doctrinaire ones stomped off in fury, insisting that only a directly elected president would do — a position that would make more sense if either the monarch and the governor-general, or the president who might replace them, had any real power under the Australian constitution.

So about a third of the No votes that scupper an Australian republic, it is estimated, will be cast by ardent republicans who fondly imagine that if they reject this referendum proposal as unsatisfactory, they will be able to vote on another, better one in a few years’ time.

Senator Ridgeway has a firmer grasp of political reality: there will probably not be another referendum on the monarchy for at least a generation, if not longer.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Howard has not been so foolish as to follow the original plan and invite Queen Elizabeth II, as Australia’s head of state, to open the Olympic Games in Sydney next year. He is going to open them himself. – Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist. (Hamilton Spectator, C2, 11/2/1999)

 

Wednesday August 11, 1999

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday August 11, 1999

Yeltsin Protecting Entourage in Shuffle Russia

Political analysts see Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s nomination of Russia’s fifth premier in 17 months as an act of desperation aimed at protecting the interests of his entourage and not of the country.

The choice of security boss Vladimir Putin, with roots in the Soviet-era KGB, also boosts the threat of “unconstitutional” measures like declaring a state of emergency that might derail a general election scheduled Dec. 19, they said.

Earlier yesterday, Yeltsin fired Prime Minister Sergei Stepashin, just three months after appointing him to the post, and named Putin acting premier. He also declared Putin his preferred candidate in next summer’s presidential election.

The move coincides with rising political tension triggered by the formation of a powerful new bloc uniting popular Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov and regional leaders and by fresh conflict in the unruly North Caucasus — a development that could provide the grounds for declaring a state of emergency in Russia.

“Putin is tougher than Stepashin and has the support of the security organs, ” said last week’s edition of the Moskovskiye Novosti newspaper, which accurately predicted Putin’s appointment.

Other “unconstitutional” scenarios rehearsed in Russia’s mass media include bann ing the main opposition Communist party, in the name of fighting political “extremism” and dissolving the legislature to allow Yeltsin to rule indefinitely by decree.

Yeltsin’s naming of Putin as his preferred heir did not impress analysts.

“Putin is not a public figure, ” said analyst Andrei Piontkovsky of the man dubbed the Grey Cardinal for his secretive, behind-the-scenes style.

Putin’s taciturn expression is also unlikely to appeal to Russian voters.

“But Putin is the best candidate (as prime minister) if The Family is preparing a non-constitutional scenario for holding on to their power and privileges, ” Piontkovsky added.

Politicians and analysts from across the spectrum were unanimous on one point — Putin’s appointment had nothing to do with protecting national interests or helping the economy.

“This could jeopardize the (economic) recovery we have seen, ” said Peter Westin, economist at Russian Economic Trends.

“Yeltsin is just showing the only means of power he has, hiring and firing. It is becoming fairly ridiculous.”

Putin, whom Yeltsin also named as first deputy prime minister yesterday, must now be approved by the State Duma. If the opposition-dominated chamber rejects him three times, Yeltsin must call an election.

Analysts were divided over whether deputies, who in any case face the voters in December, would accept Putin.

Some said deputies would quietly nod him through, as they did Stepashin, to hold on to their privileges until their mandate expires. (Hamilton Spectator, C4, 8/10/1999)

 

Thursday June 25, 1998

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday June 25, 1998

Tiananmen clouding Clinton trip

For months leading up to Bill Clinton’s hotly debated trip to China, Harry Wu has stood as the last line of moral defence for the U.S. president.

The long-imprisoned Chinese dissident has continued to rail against the “Butchers in Beijing” from his new home-in-exile in the United States, but he has also spoken out in favour of Clinton’s trip, which begins tomorrow, in the face of stinging attacks from Clinton’s critics in Congress.

But on the issue of Tiananmen Square, Wu offers no encouragement.

“He should not show himself on the Tiananmen Square, ” Wu says. “The president of the United States is very different from other leaders of the world.”

Nine years after Chinese soldiers gunned down hundreds of protesters, Tiananmen Square continues to resonate in the U.S. and around the world as the singular demonstration of Beijing’s arrogant authority.

So much so that how the U.S. president handles the controversial welcoming ceremony there Saturday, as well as the gamut of human rights issues in China, could determine whether Clinton returns to Washington on Independence Day next month in triumph or disgrace.

A recent poll found that 64 per cent of Americans believe Clinton should not go to Tiananmen Square, even though that is the traditional location for welcoming foreign leaders.

Debunking the so-called “Beijing spring, ” Amnesty International released an open letter to the president last week listing 50 Chinese dissidents who have been “harassed” in the past year and called on Clinton to meet with dissidents — pointedly noting that Ronald Reagan met with a similar group during his trip to the Soviet Union.

The human rights group also called on Clinton to forcefully request amnesty for hundreds of political prisoners.

While offering an opportunity to put his stamp on China, Clinton knows too well the trip is strewn with pitfalls.

The visit could not have come at a worse time for Clinton.

Two congressional committees began hearings on whether the Chinese illegally funneled contributions into Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign and whether he improperly permitted the transfer of sensitive satellite technology that the Chinese can use to improve guidance systems for their intercontinental ballistic missiles.

As well, the Chinese have been accused of helping Pakistan develop nuclear weapons and sending missile technology to Iran. (Hamilton Spectator, C1, 6/24/1998)

 

Thursday November 6, 1997

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday November 6, 1997

Cleaner Lakes merit priority

There is a risk that Canada and the United States are treading water, and at risk of losing ground, in cleaning up the Great Lakes . The world’s largest freshwater ecosystem is cleaner and healthier 25 years after the signing of a landmark pollution control agreement in 1972. But much of the progress that’s been achieved could be squandered. Governments are cutting environmental budgets, weakening pollution laws and enforcement, and there’s reason to worry that politicians will become indifferent to a problem that defies easy solution. 

Marvellous Maps

The apathy that often relegates the Great Lakes to the bottom of the political totem pole is hard to understand. Some 37 million people live on either side of the Great Lakes . They draw heavily on Great Lakes water for their drinking water, recreation, fishing, manufacturing and many other uses. The stakes are extremely high. The economy and quality of life in the Great Lakes Basin hinges on the condition of this irreplaceable resource. 

There can be no complacency about past achievements — a fact that was driven home to government officials who gathered in Niagara Falls last weekend for the 25th anniversary of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Three environmental groups issued a joint report which criticized governments on both sides of the border for allowing massive amounts of toxic substances to be released into the ecosystem every day. 

The watchdogs found that while a few successes have been achieved in reducing the threat posed by DDT, PCBs and some other toxic chemicals, governments are moving too slowly in accomplishing the goal of zero discharge in the agreement. Progress has been especially slow in phasing out chemicals that result in the generation and release of dioxins and furans, which pose some of the most serious threats to life. The risks to human health remain ominous. An American scientist reported on one study showing that children of women who ate Lake Ontario fish before they were born stand a chance of having lower IQs and other learning and behavioural problems later in life. Lakewide management strategies and remedial action plans for pollution hotspots are generally proceeding at what the environmentalists describe as a glacial pace. Only one of 43 areas of concern, Collingwood Harbour, has been delisted in the past 10 years. 

To be sure, there are encouraging signs. The Double-crested Cormorant, a large fish-eating bird, has made an incredible recovery after being devastated by toxic chemicals. There are now more cormorants on the Great Lakes than at any time in recorded history. But the threats to the Lakes are daunting. Dangerous levels of pollution which harm humans, fish and wildlife should never be accepted as the price of progress and prosperity. 

Governments must show leadership by making a renewed commitment to the ingredients of past success: cleanup plans supported with the necessary funding, an insistence on strong laws with strict enforcement, and timetables to phase out the use and production of toxic chemicals that put everyone at risk. The disturbing fact is that many politicians are, of late, going in the opposite direction. They are making short-sighted decisions which will come back to haunt this generation, and the next. Political and business leaders must accept their responsibility and mobilize an effort in which we all do our fair share to protect the Great Lakes. (Source: Hamilton Spectator editorial)