It is surely telling that a speech making no mention of nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament, military spending, non-proliferation, arms control, common security or human security can be so widely celebrated, in Canada and globally, as far-reaching and even visionary. What do these omissions tell us? That a Carney government is all-in on the flat-out ‘re-armament’ frenzy (a surge from already high levels of military spending) in NATO and EU, including fatally close involvement in the ‘cockamamie scheme’ (to quote Lloyd Axworthy) of President Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ missile defence fantasy. (The PM is quite happy to ‘play along to get along’ there.) Yes, he does hurdle the lowest possible bar when he calls for “the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter,” but without acknowledging that the UN Charter also seeks the lowest possible (as opposed to the highest possible) levels of military spending in pursuit of the systematic demilitarization of world affairs, or what is (or was) known in UN-speak as ‘general and complete disarmament.’
Will the speech arrest the slide toward a third world war, almost certainly a nuclear war, probably – to judge by numerous ‘pre-war world’ NATO statements – within the next 5-10 years? It doesn’t even raise that spectre or sound that alarm, or any alarm about the climate breakdown that rearmament (and Canada’s breakneck oil extraction and mining programme) will contribute so significantly to: along ‘war’ and ‘peace,’ the words ‘climate’ and ‘environment’ are also missing from the speech, stunning omissions going unremarked and unlamented.
PM Carney became PM Corny immediately after the speech when he said Canada must be “beacon to a world that’s at sea”. Well, it’s certainly a world awash in arms, and the only beacon that save it from wreck is peace. Not after but now: or, as Carney has never and will never say, “there is no way to peace – peace is the way.”
Carney's speech as it addresses the geo political situation is excellent. He shows insight, courage and invites worldwide cooperation. When he talks about his plans and actions for Canada he seems to be on the side of corporations and (therefore) fails to address the climate crisis, and wants a large increase in military spending. This worries me! Respecfully, hanny
It was a strong speech in terms of depicting and analysing the brutal exploitation wielded by the powers to be. However Carney still sits firmly in the unrealistic expectation that the economy has to grow, which implies exploitation. We can not afford an economy of ever more energy needs, ever more material ( metals, top soil, biomass..) used and not returned to the planetary system. It is a childish but immensely strong myth that weaponry is security. The posture might help keeping takeovers at bay, but once a war starts once weapons are used ,the losses are not recoverable. The danger is not other countries , but the exploitative mindset within our culture. Why did Carney give up on the digital service tax? The war will be fought over the digital infrastructure. Whoever holds the communication monopole will leave those stranded, who do not go along . The powers are not restrained by country borders.
It is surely telling that a speech making no mention of nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament, military spending, non-proliferation, arms control, common security or human security can be so widely celebrated, in Canada and globally, as far-reaching and even visionary. What do these omissions tell us? That a Carney government is all-in on the flat-out ‘re-armament’ frenzy (a surge from already high levels of military spending) in NATO and EU, including fatally close involvement in the ‘cockamamie scheme’ (to quote Lloyd Axworthy) of President Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ missile defence fantasy. (The PM is quite happy to ‘play along to get along’ there.) Yes, he does hurdle the lowest possible bar when he calls for “the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter,” but without acknowledging that the UN Charter also seeks the lowest possible (as opposed to the highest possible) levels of military spending in pursuit of the systematic demilitarization of world affairs, or what is (or was) known in UN-speak as ‘general and complete disarmament.’
Will the speech arrest the slide toward a third world war, almost certainly a nuclear war, probably – to judge by numerous ‘pre-war world’ NATO statements – within the next 5-10 years? It doesn’t even raise that spectre or sound that alarm, or any alarm about the climate breakdown that rearmament (and Canada’s breakneck oil extraction and mining programme) will contribute so significantly to: along ‘war’ and ‘peace,’ the words ‘climate’ and ‘environment’ are also missing from the speech, stunning omissions going unremarked and unlamented.
PM Carney became PM Corny immediately after the speech when he said Canada must be “beacon to a world that’s at sea”. Well, it’s certainly a world awash in arms, and the only beacon that save it from wreck is peace. Not after but now: or, as Carney has never and will never say, “there is no way to peace – peace is the way.”
Carney's speech as it addresses the geo political situation is excellent. He shows insight, courage and invites worldwide cooperation. When he talks about his plans and actions for Canada he seems to be on the side of corporations and (therefore) fails to address the climate crisis, and wants a large increase in military spending. This worries me! Respecfully, hanny
It was a strong speech in terms of depicting and analysing the brutal exploitation wielded by the powers to be. However Carney still sits firmly in the unrealistic expectation that the economy has to grow, which implies exploitation. We can not afford an economy of ever more energy needs, ever more material ( metals, top soil, biomass..) used and not returned to the planetary system. It is a childish but immensely strong myth that weaponry is security. The posture might help keeping takeovers at bay, but once a war starts once weapons are used ,the losses are not recoverable. The danger is not other countries , but the exploitative mindset within our culture. Why did Carney give up on the digital service tax? The war will be fought over the digital infrastructure. Whoever holds the communication monopole will leave those stranded, who do not go along . The powers are not restrained by country borders.