4 - The Prince George Citizen - Friday, August 24, 1990 Opinion EDITORIAL BOARD: 562-2441, Local 500 Al McNair, Roy Nagel, Pete Miller, Bob Miller TROOP BUILDUPS, POLITICKING DANGEROUS The stirrings of war — is anyone listening? OTTAWA — Three smallish Canadian Navy ships set sail from Halifax Thursday, bound for a wor-ihy but ambiguous mission in the Gulf. Let’s wish them all bon voyage and safe home. Like most Canadians I suppose — though I haven’t seen any polls — I’m proud and glad these men and women are going there to express by more than words our solidarity with the United Nations sanctions in condemnation of Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait. At the same time, I share with many others a sense of foreboding, especially when, just as the ships weighed anchor, Iraq required foreign embassies in Kuwait to close. Some of our diplomats are staying on to help stranded compatriots, despite their loss of diplomatic protection. They too deserve our thanks and pride. For the ships and their co-ed crews, there’s concern because their role has not been more clearly spelled out and because many Canadians would prefer that they were flying the sky-blue flag of the United Nations, and operating under UN command. It would have been good if Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had gone down to wave them off from Halifax and even provide them with some clear guidance on what is expected of them. But he had other priorities. On the larger scene, there is foreboding that Washington is going over the top with a military buildup so immense that its momentum could carry the U.S. forces beyond their proclaimed defensive role into a bloody conflict. Already American super-hawks like Henry Kissinger, master-mind of the di- Christopher Young sastrous attack on Cambodia, are demanding immediate war. President Bush and the Pentagon have mounted a political attack on “the budget slashers," as though relieved that the end of the Cold War, after all, doesn’t mean they have to stop building their multi-billion-dollar war toys. The propaganda television film shown Thursday of Saddam Hussein cynically patting the heads of American hostage children in Baghdad can only inflame U.S. and British passions even more. Despite the gravity of the situation, there are obvious signs that Bush is playing it for all it’s worth in terms of votes for the November congressional elections. He’s simultaneously demanding a reduction in the budget deficit and increases for the Pentagon’s pet projects. It’s a strong antidote for the wimp image, even if it makes no mathematical sense. Mulroney is leaving his long hibernation at Harrington Lake today for a meeting with his shrunken and divided Quebec caucus in Gaspe. They won’t spend much time worrying about the sailors aboard the destroyers Athabaskan and Terra Nova and the supply ship Protectcur. They’ll be discussing how to counter the Bloc Quc-becois, how to prevent further defections in Parliament and what to put in place of the failed campaign for the Mecch Lake accord campaign. After that the prime minister will go Kcnncbunkport, Me., complete with Mila and the children, for a jolly visit with the Bush family. The president’s weird performance at his country estate is apparently designed to show that he’s confident in face of the Iraq crisis. TV cameras arc summoned to film him barking a few answers to reporters’ questions, then tearing off on his golf cart for what arc said to be unsuccessful assaults on par. It has something to with die fact that Jimmy Carter stayed in the White House, working hard in his office, during HIS hostage crisis, and HE lost his election for a second term. Therefore Bush has to pretend to be playing hard (even if he’s really working hard) so that Americans won’t think he’s another Carter. Whether the young and photogenic Mulroney family has been signed up as a supporting cast for these political commercials, whether Brian expects the TV clips to bolster his own dim hopes of re-election, or whether they’re all just going to have a good time at the cottage, is beyond the analytical powers of those who who think elected leaders should be judged on what they produce in the way of sound policies and wise leadership. I’m not sure that it really matters. Now that even Saddam Hussein is making propaganda commercials, what can you do? End the standoff Finally — a few precious words of common sense on the standoff between the Mohawk Warriors Society and Quebec and federal governments at Oka, Quebec. Federal Justice Minister Kim Campbell found the courage Thursday to put into words the sentiments of millions of Canadians on the issue of a sovereign Mohawk nation with its own government, laws and police. There can be just one legal system for everyone in Canada, Campbell said in a speech to the Confederation Club of Ottawa; “the Criminal Code applies to all persons in Canada without exception.’’ Campbell, who is former Indian Affairs Minister, said the federal government will not accept the argument that Mohawks at Oka have the right to be recognized as a sovereign nation, and therefore the right to ignore the laws tl ill other Canadians must observe. With demand for status as a separate nation and amnesty fo. tives who exchanged gunfire with police in an incident . ,.j 11 that resulted in the death of a policeman, the Mohawk Warriors Society has — perhaps unwittingly — sent the signal that it won’t take part in meaningful negotiations to settle its land claims. It doesn’t really matter. The Warriors have the same right to fair treatment and justice as other Canadians, but they aren’t the elected representatives of the people of Oka; they have no right to dictate conditions of settlement to their own people, let alone to the entire nation, and they don’t have the right to thumb their noses at the laws that govern us all. The time has come to end this silliness — not by negotiating the question of sovereignty for Mohawks and the removal of barricades, but by pulling the federal and Quebec governments together with elected native representatives to work out a timetable for dealing with the much-larger issue of native territorial claims. Time for action Hamilton Spectator Northwest Territories government leader Dennis Patterson had a better idea than the provincial premiers meeting in Winnipeg two weeks ago. He wanted a premiers’ conference on aboriginal issues in Yellowknife in October. Instead, the premiers opted for asking Ottawa to set up a federal-provincial meeting. Ottawa has already cancelled a meeting planned for the fall. Patterson’s plan would have given natives some hope that nine provincial governments (Quebec, still in a snit over Mcech Lake, is boycotting inter-provincial meetings) would start dealing with native issues. It’s exactly the kind of assurance governments — including the dormant one in Ottawa — ought to be offering natives and all other civilized Canadians who fear and abhor the kind of violence that erupted in Quebec. The promise of high-level dialogue, with a firm commitment to a time and place to get talks started, would be a positive and timely response to the national outburst of native grievances. Other provinces aren’t apt to repeat Quebec’s mistake, using massive force against an Indian barricade on disputed land. That provoked the Mohawk Warriors Society’s irresponsible and dangerous blockade of the Mercicr bridge. The lesson, as old as history, is that violence begets violence. No one expects governments to find a quick formula lhat will answer all native questions. Solutions have to be tailored to the unique circumstances and claims of each band. But there arc common problems that Ottawa and the provinces can tackle jointly with native leaders. Governments could work on their attitudes, too. Ottawa’s well-meant but paternalistic Indian Act needs a thorough overhaul. It holds Indians to be wards of the state, children in need of bureaucratic babysitters. Canada has to start dealing with natives as responsible adults, deserving the respect and rights of full Canadian citizenship. As Quebec’s bad example proved, people resort to extremes when there’s no civilized alternative. Instead of putting the natives on hold, the premiers should have offered them an alternative. (Distributed by Southam News.) SERVING THE REGION SINCE 1916 The Prince George & Citizen A. J. McNair, Publisher y'R. K. Nagel, Editor Doug French, Advertising Manager A Southam Lisa O’Neill, Business Manager Newspaper J- D. Perry, Circulation Manager 150 Brunswick SL, Prince George, B.C. V2L 5K9, P.O. Box 5700 Phone 562-2441 (NOT BORN THE tVMIMESS NEOTOMAREM CONMONS IN IE fERSI/W GULF... TL & % X H£AW VOlUltlE AT THE WTROACHES. BUT THESE CANAL FINING SOIOOIHLY.A STALL IN THE STRAUS OF HOfBC IS SACKING IIP WSH PS AS FAR WK A5 DIEGO GARCIA AC01L SION OFF BAHRAIN. REIWEEN A FRENCH FRIGATE. A# A US CAN®. IS CN)SIN6 nttirs. AS ALLTHE (JIHER VW!-SWPS ARE SUJMBB DOWN TO IOOK... LITTLE VALUE IN ELECTION CAMPAIGN Let's do without TV debates OTTAWA — Stop the television debates. Right now. Let Monday night’s be the last one. Ever. The debates produce nothing of any use to the voter. They distract the media and waste the politicians’ time. If they are not banned now, it won’t be long before they arc mandatory. That would be a nightmare. Democracy would not survive it. Politicians would not survive it. Voters would not survive it. Only television would survive it. This is a grim thought — a world with television and without democracy — and it is necessary to note that not everyone buys it. On Wednesday, David Peterson look a rosier view of the debate. ‘‘It’s no more profound or superficial, frankly, than lots of other tilings in a campaign," Peterson said. Pan of governing is “a capacity to communicate. You’ve got to be fast on your feet." That is the classic argument for television debates: that they show how leaders function under pressure. They don’t show that at all. They show how well political leaders memorize briefing notes and how well they can look comfortable on television. Neither quality has anything to do with governing, much less thinking. Television debates do not highlight the differences among leaders, only their similarities. The leaders, having researched what the voters Charles Gordon want to hear, all try to say it. On the screen, they crowd into the middle of the road and try to be the same. When it’s over, the voter knows only that they look different. And not that much, either. Because the experts know what colors are best, what type of suit, what gestures, what tone of voice. The voter tunes in, thinking he is watching a debate. What he sees instead is a group of politicians delivering rehearsed lines in rehearsed tones of voice. Afraid to say anything different, the politician says something generic, delivered with seeming conviction and seeming sincerity: "The voters of Ontario are demanding action," he says. “They are not satisfied with the old ways, the old solutions. They need the new approaches we offer, approaches that do not require higher taxes, only the courage to tackle the real problems of Ontario. Wc will tackle those problems by telling the truth, by listening to the people and by putting our full energies into doing what is best for all the people, not just some of the people.” Faced with such timid eyewash, the voter can only let his mind and his eyes wander. He begins to think about the things that the experts have told him should be affecting his judgment. He looks at suits, at tics, at gestures; he looks for eye contact, checks camera angles. And sure enough, when the experts weigh in the next day on the morning radio shows, that’s what they’re talking about. Harris stood too still. Rae gestured too much. Then the interest groups give their verdict. The labor people say none of tire leaders said anything about labor. The tropical fish owners complain that nobody said enough about tropical fish. It could all be written beforehand and perhaps it is, just as the speeches in the debate could be delivered in any year in any province, in any country. Without a debate, the media wouldn’t be able to do the preparing-for-die-debate story. They wouldn’t be able to do the who-won story and they wouldn’t be able to do the impact-of-who-won story. That would leave, as subject matter, what the politicians actually say. Knowing lhat what they say is going to be reported, the politicians might have to say something. That could be interesting. It will never happen, though, until wc abolish the television debate. Please write The Citizen Invites readers to express their views on topics of public interest However, unless there are good reasons for anonymity, letters to the editor will be published only if signed by the writer. Address and phone number of the writer must also be included so that authenticity of the letter can be checked. Letters must be free of libel, personal abuse or other impropriety. They should be no more than 200 words in length and may be edited for space and other reasons. Typed letters should be double spaced. D O O N E S B U R Y ...COHERE HE'LL. 36 KEEPING AN5Y6 0N. .UM... I'VE JUST BEEN MP ROLAND ALREADY HAG SOMETHING FOR US! ROLAND? PETER, I 'M HERE TALKING TO DAVENPORTS PERSONAE MAID... *