My contribution to your Dialogue on Foreign Policy. Thank you for the opportunity.
April 30, 2003
A Dialogue on Foreign Policy
I'm pleased that the government has invited public participation in reviewing Canada's foreign policy practices. It's these kinds of exemplary acts that lend Canada its legitimacy in promoting a principled, open society model to the world. And without doubt it's the most promising formula to promote world-wide during these trying times, throughout every sphere, from family structure to societal, if stakeholders are to become benignly integrated into the management process instead of being made dangerously alienated from it. For it's mainly in the absence of any hope for meaningful input, and thus for simple justice, that acts of retaliatory terrorism are spawned.
Canada's idealist grasp for a more holistic formula in its endeavors, as presented by the discussion paper, is encouraging, as is the vital priority of achieving human well-being generally wherein our own is inextricably bound. For the inherent trust and support that Canada needs from other nations in order to play a meaningful role in a multilateral framework is integral to the expressed priority of these terms, and thus in turn we can achieve the benefit of a collective security within which our own vulnerable nation can thrive.
The difficulty the discussion paper has in separating the complex intertwining of constituent elements in the three pillars concept was apparent to me though. Should an effective Canadian effort promote principles to secure prosperity? Or should we seek prosperity to secure principles? Or is it in achieving security that principles and prosperity are realized? The dilemma is understandable. For each of the elements in the three pillars concept is so intrinsically bound to the others that to develop a policy for one regardless of the others is to invite inevitable calamity eventually.
Though the value of identifying these core three pillar components is undeniable, I'd like to advance the cause of developing a management priority to guarantee their full integration, as a standard functional requirement, to achieve a more fail-safe holistic policy.
Therefore as a theme to differentiate the pillar approach (which can be conceptually misconstrued as elevating our needs above the rest) I'd like to focus on an integration ethos in this paper instead. So as to best manage Canadian affairs by utilizing the full resource of humanity to extend a mutual prosperity, yet qualified in a form that helps guarantee the security of Canadian sovereignty. Thus the precious values that define our Just Society model can be developed and held up to the world for scrutiny, and eventual leadership, in defining mechanisms that ensure the best possible life quality for all.
In realizing the tremendous response you have to process my outline will be brief. I hope you'll contact me about discrepancies of opinion though, to allow me to fortify arguments in which we differ, in order to economize a needlessly lengthy effort now. My intent here is to simply identify a few of the most profound eras of foreign relations to pursue, where a significant opportunity is readily apparent, and by developing each of the three pillars concepts as integral parts of a more comprehensive holistic effort I hope the advantages to Canada's well being are made obvious.
I'm sure we agree that Canada's vulnerable access to US industry confines our future development as much as it provides our current abundance. The pros and cons of this relationship encompass every sphere, and it's delicately balanced between the lethal extremes to Canada of either being fully gobbled up or of being fully spit out.
Yet I too think that Canada is best served through a more comprehensive management of this crucial balancing strategy, without allowing the US to determine Canadian policy for its own interest's sake. If Canadians are to escape the consequences befalling even the American people from US empire building -or worse still- we must find security in multilateral institutions with fail-safe mechanisms that are geared to defend the rule of law, and able to harness obligations from member nations for a collective security. For only a collective effort among those we trust will permit the expensive R&D and infrastructure development needed to acquire the kinds of powerful tools necessary to help tame the aggression of the Beast.
Of course the subject is vast; moral leadership, media reform, artificial economics, environmental reality, elitism and evolving human nature are only a few of the constituent subjects that beg to be dissected and scrutinized for solution, and someday I hope we can. But in fairness, this paper brings only a cursory outline of the most significant opportunities presenting themselves to Canada now, to underscore alternative options. By developing the holistic premise of extending prosperity, security and requisite principle to humanity itself, it becomes more possible to secure it for Canada too.
The real wealth lost by the West's myopic waste-management practice is a prime example of such an opportunity. For it is by far the greatest untapped resource in the history of humanity. To fully utilize this vast asset for the benefit of all in promoting Canada's future as a valued industrial nation presents a significant opportunity. For in developing a more sustainable industrial model that's able to significantly mitigate the human footprint that's complained about in the Rees and Wackernagel Environmental Report through multiple-use recycling, Canada will help secure its own future. And in promoting the principle of managing for humanity's psychological well being too, while realizing people's inherent and healthy contentment with a sufficiently improving life quality (as long as the trauma of regression is avoided) it benefits us to harvest our discarded goods and materials in a well-run hand-me-down program to offer a more valuable alternative to environmental stewardship than the New World Order's downsizing ethos. And thus we'd provide humanity a valid rationale for continuing our own model of industrial productivity to avoid the dramatic reduction of consumption now planned for our people.
For one cannot fail to scrutinize the underlying intent that accompanies the New World Order's downsizing fever. It is clear though, that as we become more automated corporate capitalism increasingly fails to work. For when machines produce the goods the workers are laid off, and loose their purchasing power. Strictly for-profit capitalism must cut back its production when faced with this reduction in consumer demand. But under socialism, with a mix of selective state ownership of industry, the automated machinery can be kept running at full and efficient capacity through a guaranteed income plan (distributed according to the value of the goods its machines produce) in order to guarantee general life quality for the public even under a full automation structure. Thus the eventual transition to socialism was a given according to Marx, "in a highly technical society" he said, but he meant under full automation.
Of course the elite realize the threat that increasing socialism means to their privileged station in life, and to the continued dominance of the personal empires they've built, unless they counter it somehow. Canadians must thus beware of the inevitable measures they'll craft to ameliorate this dawning catastrophe to their status quo, even though it's at such tragic expense to the rest of humanity. The weakening of government, and a massive privatization fever, often effected by kickbacks and lucrative share options offered to participating bureaucrats for example -according to Joseph Stiglitz- clearly defines one of the agendas they're pursuing. I suspect that the loss of domestic consumer demand from downsizing and automation is being compensated by opening up the weakening markets to global demand instead, under the guise of general poverty amelioration and holistic environmental stewardship. But the intent is probably meant to simply stave off the inevitable rise of socialism for as long as they possibly can. (But sadly I'm not privilege to insider information sources to corroborate this premise.)
If it's true though, it's such an offense. For humanity to be standing upon the threshold of full automation, extended longevity and technology that offers an exponential developmental potential, and yet to have it all sabotaged by simple, elitist self-interest, is just too tragic.
None-the-less there are options. A frank and comprehensive review of the West's waste disposal practices could bring a new principle of accounting for the vast amounts of reusable goods and materials that are being denied humanity every year because of administrative oversight. This is a total amount of hand-me-downs in fact that virtually dwarfs the amounts contributed by all nations' foreign aid programs (in terms of the potential number of individuals whose life quality would directly benefit from receipt of these goods). Thus the crucial importance to humanity to develop a more effective management infrastructure to redistribute these undervalued resources that are being wasted by industrialized nations.
That the poorest 20% of people on the planet should suffer such grotesque deprivation in face of the hundreds of millions of tons of reusable goods and materials that are buried in landfill or ground back into raw ore for the smelters every year in the West is an affront to common sense. And the current justification of this practice on the basis of a few myopic politicians and do-gooders who've complained about receiving hand-me-downs from the world community instead of new products, only testifies to their own privileged birth and not to the real-life circumstances that the rest of humanity struggles with every day. Current shipments of outdated computers to poor nations for example, being defined by environmentalists as unwanted "hazardous waste", is really a function of distribution mismanagement, and it's not an issue of computers being unwanted. For a simple link to the internet with an old 286 or even an XT computer, that are now laying in landfill, would provide rural villages with adequate information to diagnose and treat their own problems as they arise, including medical, even though they are deprived of professional services because of poverty. Thus the published complaints about the West offloading waste are only levied from nations suffering a huge localized dumping, disproportionate to their needs, and not from those where a well organized distribution network of locally serviced hand-me-down computers from the industrial centers in the West has been developed.
This example highlights the standard need for the three pillars components to be fully integrated into all Canadian endeavors. For the ongoing promotion of education and goodwill, including requisite principles, are as valuable to the security of the recipients as the goods we offer. But neglecting any single element can result in resentment instead, and in many cases with circumstances sited here, accusations of selfish dumping were levied, thus defining the crucial importance of a fully comprehensive management of even a hand-me-down program.
For the accumulative recoverable materials from just the OECD nations in the post war period could have provided every one of the world's 2 billion poorest people with over a ton of valuable materials by now. And thus would have significantly mitigated their needlessly deprived living conditions. These are precious materials compared to the little more than grass and twigs that's available to most of them now. The many tons of discarded lumber-pile tarps for example, would be welcomed world-wide to augment the typically leaky roofing materials that nature naturally provides in the poorest rural regions. And along with tons of used carpets, old furniture and window glass galore, a much more comfortable homestead would be provided to millions of the world's most needy. And the list goes on, endlessly. So much diversity of material in fact that an organized effort to deliver it where needed would significantly ameliorate human deprivation on the entire planet, and significantly mitigate our own environmental footprint too. For the industrial fallout/bio-sink ratio is factored accordingly, and under a doubling and tripling of geographical bases through the expanded populations being served, our own productivity model becomes more sustainable. (At least, mitigated, until a clean energy supply can be found.)
But these materials which the earth has duly paid for, in energy loss and the pollution of manufacturing, must be fully accounted for if a reasonable management of the trade-offs of effective resource utilization is to be determined. Yet these precious goods and materials have been so-far simply disposed of, as a matter of back-door convenience, even though they are still desperately needed by the poor.
The images of war-ravaged Afghans, surrounded by a land that is comprised of very little but sand, still haunts my memory. How could we allow such havoc to be wreaked upon a people and then simply move-on as they're left to fend for themselves? Our mountains of old refrigerators being ground back into raw ore for the smelters provide over 40 sq ft of easily workable sheet metal each. Metal that can be fashioned into boilers and stove pipes and hundreds of other everyday goods that are in short supply in their villages. Fridge evaporator and condenser tubing, solar reflectors and heat exchangers can be fashioned into stills to convert food waste to alcohol in order to fuel the old lawn mower engines we throw out by the thousands. Such machinery will increase production significantly for Afghans, as rotor tillers, grain mills, irrigation pumps, and generators for welders and power tools, etc. Thus the tons of old garden hoses we throw out yearly could be rigged to pump an efficient drip irrigation system to a land that's in desperate need of additional yield. The amazing potential of human creativity and innovation is limited only by the materials they have to work with, and Canada's refuse piles are overflowing with the most valuable materials ever. These are materials with sufficient value to be sold in needy countries to at least cover the costs of shipping.
Why waste the precious human relations leverage that we could bring to these people at this crucial time in our history, not to mention the significant material comfort they'd derive, or our own interests we could develop? Just for correcting the historic and immoral practices of ol' boy administrative protectionism and its thoughtless, knee-jerk acts of management convenience that's largely authored our waste management practices to date?
The excuse that's given about the untenable costs of shipping, is in fact misrepresentative, for it's only a pittance the real-life value of the goods. As a charitable expression, the real cost of shipping a hundred boxcar trainload of material to Guatemala is about 3 gallons of diesel fuel per mile, plus the wages of three crewmen for three shifts per day and the train's maintenance and depreciation costs. As a charitable expression it could be as low as a few dollars per ton. Shipping by barge is much cheaper still. Yet the developmental potential for humanity from establishing a world-wide thrift-store type infrastructure with such massive amounts of formerly wasted material rescued for reuse is astronomical.
One of BC's largest thrift stores, Goodwill Enterprises, recently went out of business because of the singular expense of increased landfill charges for the surplus donated goods that its stores' couldn't sell. Using that lever alone people would be willing to place reusable stuff in a separate compartment, longitudinally dividing the commercial waste bins now serving businesses across the country. And once the trash in the bin was emptied at the landfill site, the truck could be re-weighed for credit before opening the door to the recycle compartment for its dumping -perhaps on a gravity-fed loading ramp for ease of re-shipment. Thus, effective organization using automation techniques, including redesigned waste bins, and a public awareness campaign, could make the reuse export effort painless, efficient and successful. And it will justify and promote the continuation of our own productivity model, which our people have grown accustomed to, and perhaps win popular international support against our needless downsizing. After all, we're well positioned and fully prepared to live with the daily consequences of effectively managing the environmental conditions of being a valued industrial nation. This is a significant burden that many nations would like to avoid where possible, as long as they can posses the modern goods.
Valid arguments against elements of this plan rightly insist that much of our metal waste is in forms that are not malleable with ordinary household tools, and this heavier-type scrap such as car bodies for example, is extremely valuable to Canada. The smelters use 25% less fuel and pollute less when using scrap metal instead of ore. And car bodies comprise one of the largest sources of scrap we use. But the electrical motors salvaged from cars that are used for windshield wipers, starters, pumps, blowers, seat and window motors are extremely more valuable than mere scrap for adaptive reuse by needy nations, as are some heat exchangers, engines and drive trains too. These goods and materials are too precious to be wasted by grinding into raw ore, and should be sorted, and portioned out to villages accordingly, as a part of our foreign aid program.
Thus if Canada's foreign aid contributions were specifically designed to include recycled goods it would inevitably include basic hand tools and appropriate technical literature to compliment the delivery of these materials. Perhaps an effective education and tool loan system will evolve locally too under Canada's guidance, resulting in a significant amplification of the benefit they'd derive over that offered by our current aid money alone. And of course it would cultivate dependable links to our own suppliers for parts and replacement goods, and for educational and management services, as their infrastructure takes shape. An infrastructure where Canada would continue to publish its social contributions from within, thus fulfilling our three pillar integration model obligations, which best contribute towards the benevolent development of humanity.
And finally, the detractors' argument that we'd be significantly empowering potential competitors in the long term, needs to be addressed. Though it rightly holds a truth, it therefore defines a further obligation for Canada, which is perhaps the most important element of all. Canada's potential allows us to integrate important values along with aid shipments into the operating consciousness of our neighbours. And in fact, it's a crucial duty we have that's defined by the integration policy, to help secure the well-being of humanity and thus ourselves. Thus we must actively help engender a measure of kinship and a loyalty of common principle with our neighbours, which will significantly promote security for all through encouraging a benevolent evolution, and thus establish the Canadian model as one worthy of support. Our ability to be helpful and willingness to become integrated within various nation's development -along with the democratic principles and egalitarianism we represent- can go a long way in helping encourage a commonality in humanity that will secure our own model through the obvious fruits of its leadership role.
Fortunately, many options exist for Canada. But the least fruitful in my perception is to simply acquiesce to the US model that's being imposed on us now. We are blessed to have abundant materials and sufficient automation to be able to afford to finance our people's efficient efforts to go forth and develop these international links, to establish an efficient delivery infrastructure in order to fully harvest the existing tremendous potential that's being wasted, for the benefit of all, including us. For I'm afraid if we don't find a way, it could result in the most tragic waste of all, that of Canadian sovereignty.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, David Piney. |
