Rethinking Citizenship

Two concurrent events have recently had me thinking a great deal about what citizenship really means. The first has been the horrifying events surrounding the Syrian refugee crisis, most notably the tragic loss of life on the shores of Turkey, and heart-breaking footage of children washed up on desolate beaches. Those images have profoundly affected me and I find it difficult to look at my three year-old son and not superimpose the mental image of a similarly aged boy lying face down on the beach, almost as if asleep, but never again to awake.

The second has been an incredibly disappointing and “un-Canadian” turn events with the recent amendments to the Citizenship Act (Bill C-24), enabling citizens (notably, dual-nationals) to be “stripped” of their Canadian citizenship if implicated in acts against the state, including acts of terrorism. The language of the act opens a serious crack in the door of the ‘robust’ notion of citizenship and gives government considerable discretion over how it chooses to repeal the grant of citizenship.

I’m a Canadian-Australian dual national. I was born in Calgary and have maintained close ties to Canada all my life. I return to Canada regularly to be with friends and family. I own property in Canada. I take interest in Canadian political and national affairs. I identify with Canada’s multicultural and international reputation for fairness, freedom and institutional integrity. Yet, this change in Canada’s stance on what it means to be “Canadian” is truly shocking, especially at a time when sovereign identity and the role of the international community needs to be balanced with the basic human needs and rights of the displaced.

There are four fundamental flaws with the Canadian Government’s changed notion of citizenship. The first is that is destroys the true sanctity of the definition of citizenship, and what it means to achieve it. The vast majority of people that become a Canadian citizen do so through hard work, commitment and an often difficult journey to become part of something great. In creating the potential for the discretionary revocation of citizenship, with fairly wide purview, the absolute meaning and aspiration of citizenship is diluted. For example, how could we ever allow Syrian refugees to become Canadian “conditionally” after everything they have been through (don’t get me started on Canada’s political and military intervention – or lack thereof – to begin with).

The second tragedy of this law is that it effectively creates a second class “citizenship”. It establishes a class of citizens that remain vulnerable to the discretion of government. Governments make mistakes, governments over-reach their authority, and this law opens the door for all kinds of abuse and corruption that has the potential to permanently threaten vulnerable segments of the populace. Canada’s institutions may be more robust than that of many other countries, but no executive branch of government is flawless.

Thirdly – and somewhat related to the second point – is the disappointing side-effect that it is no longer acceptable to be Canadian and “something else” as well. I always thought that one of the great things about being Canadian was that it was ok to be a Canadian-Pakistani, or a Canadian-Afghan. Unlike the USA, where I would argue cultural identity is constantly pressured and subjugated to the “ideal” of America (you are, first and foremost, American goddammit), with considerable racial tensions that result, Canada always seemed to more peacefully allow multiple identities to co-exist. This legislation will threaten Canada’s multi-cultural tolerance.

However the worst – and most ironic – thing about this legislation, is that it will effectively make Canada less lawful on the international stage. The upstanding moral compass, the “decency”, Canada’s hard-earned international reputation for fairness, integrity and freedom is threatened by this legislation. Why? Because in stripping individuals of their Canadian citizenship, they are no longer subject to Canada’s extraterritorial laws. Let’s take a hypothetical example – you have a Russian-Canadian dual national that decides to go and fight for ISIS, and Canadian citizenship is repealed. Instead of being able to subject that individual to Canada’s terrorism laws, the government effectively wipes their hands and leaves them to the jurisdiction of the “other” nationality. If that other country has a weaker legal system, then less control and less recourse is able to be exerted.

For example, Australia has extra-territorial laws regarding pedophilia. If an Australian goes abroad Thailand on vacation and has sex (consensual or otherwise) with a minor (by definition of Australian law) they are subject to prosecution in Australia upon their return. It doesn’t matter that the offense was committed offshore, it is an illegal act of citizenship. In my opinion “statutory rape” is just another kind of terrorism, no different than the barbarian acts of ISIS – often committed against women and children.

Instead of stripping Canadians of their citizenship, the government should be holding them ABSOLUTELY to the standards of Canadian citizenship at home and abroad. That would not only strengthen and define what it means to be Canadian, but it would serve to project the power and integrity of Canada around the world.

While we have North Korea, we’ll never “fix” Iran

I have watched the escalation of events on the Korean peninsula today with horror – plus I have been so busy the last couple of weeks I haven’t had the motivation to blog anything. But tonight I couldn’t sleep and writing this blog entry is possibly marginally healthier than taking a sleeping pill. Ever since my son was born, events in the world have a different meaning to me and the situation has really upset me.

A few years ago I hosted a dinner party in LA with about a dozen friends. Lots of red wine and it went late into the night. At about midnight we started playing a sort of adult party game where someone would postulate a question and everyone had to raise their hand if they agreed/disagreed with the statement or if the statement applied to them. The social contract was that you had to be ‘honest’ and the general assumption in the room was that we all knew and trusted each other well enough that what was said in the room, stayed in the room.

Of course, it was originally initiated on the basis of innuendo – I think the first question was “who has slept with someone of same gender?” I’m sure it was one of my more gregarious and perverted pals trying to visualize who might have had a bit of girl-on-girl action in college… but in truth, it’s hard to keep the smut up for too long and after a while questions started getting more serious and the tone of the evening somewhat sombre. I should add that this was a quite broad cross-section of people – some scientific types, some artsy-fartsy types, a policy wonk from RAND … probably 8 different nationalities and a reasonable socio-economic distribution.

My friend Simon then asked this question – “who in their lifetime thinks that they will see a military or terrorist nuclear event directed at a civilian population.” There was a pause and everyone in the candlelit room looked around uneasily at each other. After an uncomfortable 3 or 4 second silence, everyone’s hands slowly raised in almost perfect synchronization.

It was a very dark moment.

Tonight I feel that darkness again.

However, this time I am alone as I feel this deep sense of foreboding. This further upsets me because instead of being with my wife and my son, I am by myself in a hotel room far away from them. If something dramatic happened in the world tomorrow, I would have an epic journey to be reunited with them, assuming I had the opportunity to do so and the Earth isn’t transformed into a blast furnace. I’m also far away from a lot of friends and people I admire in South Korea, and while this threat has been real for a long time, I can imagine that Seoul’s often frigid April air has a more intense chill tonight.

I believe that Kim Jong-Il was, without a doubt, an evil man. He propagated the terror and isolationist policies of his father, much in the way that a son might be groomed to continue a “successful” family business empire. Indeed, in many ways he perfected the vision of his father with an additional parameter that failure of the model of repression was simply not an option. Fear, poverty, control, isolation and propaganda has clearly successfully controlled a poor, ignorant and possibly amoral population (at least at the elite level) – without a functional equal since Hitler. It is my view that technological “supremacy” in the form of militarization and especially the nuclear program, was a cornerstone of Kim Jong-Il’s regime of fear and control.

To extend the family “businesses” analogy, Kim Jong-un is the third generation … and we all know what that means. In general (with few notable exceptions) the third generation lacks the values and the vision of the first generation. In general (with few notable exceptions) the third generation lacks the ideology and commitment of the second generation. In general (with few notable exceptions) the third generation will fail the “business.” Kim Jong-Il was a master of keeping the world on its toes for 17 years. His son may have inherited his DNA but probabilistically lacks his resolve.

Therefore the scenarios are:

1) he fails to maintain a grip on the state and it internally fails, resulting in a civil war or some kind of revolution. This has been predicted for too long for us to be hopeful about it happening fast but in the limit, it’s a reasonable expectation. Far more powerful and successful regimes have crumbled.

2) he fails to engage with the international community in a predictable way and failure is driven by extrinsic events – like war or sanctions. I suppose, in a sense, this has always been happening but if China were to abandon its “little brother” then it would dramatically accelerate.

3) he opens up the country to the world as a young, new leader who will be revered by his people in a way that his father never was. There would be a Nobel Peace Prize in it for him and prosperity beyond his wildest imagination if South Korea and China had anything to do with it.

4) he rationally or irrationally self-destructs the regime, taking as many people as he can with him.

We’ve clearly seen little evidence of 3). 1) is happening slowly but not perhaps fast enough. We can only wish for 2) but China’s continued immoral support of North Korea through food, energy and aid prevents this. Sure, it’s great that someone has effective diplomatic ties with Pyongyang – but surely diplomacy is one thing and inadvertent protection of a regime an altogether different matter?

It is my view that 4) is the most likely situation and I believe that Kim Jong-un was programmed from birth by his father to be the self-destruct button. Why? Because his father – lacking the vision of the first generation, but utterly committed to the values of his father, would never have left his desires for the future to chance. A combination of his greed/opulence, lack of positive leadership and militarily-enforced control (true cowardice) to oppress his own people, makes me feel that he would never have risked “pulling the trigger” on destruction in his own lifetime, but not left it to fate either. Kim Jong-un is robotically as much a part of a North Korean nuclear weapon as a few kilos of weapons-grade uranium.

The international community has been condemning North Korea for a long time. We also have plenty of other conflicts to deal with at the moment – some of which are arguably even more flammable, like Syria. This is a tough time for our world. I believe we will never achieve peace in the Middle East without solving Palestine – no great revelation there. Iran’s belligerency will also continue to have maximal effect while there is instability in the Middle East and Israel remains the perfect target for the Ayatollah. However, I also believe that the international community’s effectiveness in supporting a Middle East peace solution will continue to be severely limited while North Korea is allowed to posture this way.


Kim Jong-un is not a legitimate leader. His regime is not a legitimate regime. So why are we negotiating with him? Would we negotiate with Hitler if we could go back in time to 1938? Furthermore, because Kim Jong-un is not a legitimate leader, there is no rational reason to expect him to confirm to any rules of engagement, so why do we keep expecting positive negotiated outcomes? What outcome could China’s desire to re-open 6-way talks possibly achieve? The fact that the international community cannot effectively govern a situation like North Korea, which lacks legitimacy, means it also will never have the real ability to deal with a regime that is “legitimate”, albeit intent on destabilization – like Iran.

Why are we waiting for war on the Korean peninsula? Why are we waiting for an insane man-child to dump a dirty bomb on Seoul when two decades of diplomacy have failed? How can the international community even presume to effectively negotiate with Iran if it can’t even shut down this nuisance?

I believe that in order to achieve the next great period of stability in our world and avert the very real possibility of an apocalypse, we need to do three things. Firstly, and immediately, North Korea’s military aspirations needs to be crushed. I admit that this is potentially not a trivial task against 1.2m soldiers, but I am also not advocating a 1945 Hiroshima-class military intervention either. I think that the effect of targeting key military installations combined with a coalition force that willingly includes China will reduce much of the risk of a sustained military response by North Korea, particularly if it is clear that amnesty is possible.

Secondly, we need to dramatically increase and align international pressure on Israel and Palestine to adopt a two state solution. Yes, this would be economically a weaker solution than a single, harmonious state, but that scenario is never going to happen. Boundaries need to be “restored”, people need to be moved, compromises need to be made … and compensation paid. If we can (globally) spend billions bailing out corrupt banks, surely we can spend a few more billion collectively to help relocate a few hundred thousand people living in scrappy townships in the desert. Of course there is huge naivety and idealism associated with these words. I admit that…and my Israeli friends probably think I am a lunatic.

Israel is a great country and the people of Israel deserve our respect, but the 15 million people (globally) that constitute the “Jewish State” can no longer be the tail wagging the dog of instability for 7 billion other people. Is Israel Iran’s only target? No…but it is the biggest target and we need to take it away.

Lastly, give Iran their nuclear capability. Let them have it – in fact, let’s make sure that it is truly world class by being part of its implementation. One way or another they are going to get it, so why not put it out in the open? For 50 years – with great arrogance and hubris – the US, Russia, France and the UK exploded nukes all over the planet (see a rather scary time-lapse here … it’s worth waiting for). China has nukes. India and (also unstable) Pakistan have nukes. Even a lowly Korean despot managed to build something with the destructive capability of somewhere between a “bomb” and a radioactive lab accident. If Iran really does want nuclear energy for electricity and medical purposes, then let’s treat them as a “grown up” member of the international community. Recognize their sovereign independence – but by God, deal with North Korea first. If we don’t, any threat of action for non-compliance is going to be meaningless. Have economic sanctions really worked in Iran, or has it just created a country of people who are more miserable, oppressed and poor … and on the way to becoming a failed state like North Korea?

We can’t let Iran fail – embracing Iran would be the surest signal to our Muslim brothers that we value their contribution to our world. It is poverty and ignorance that incites extremism, not Islam. We have to collectively support the “creation” of Palestine and renew a global vow of development and investment in the Middle East … and Israel needs to take the lead. And, unfortunately, we need to stop this situation in Korea immediately. Export sanctions on yachts and pearl necklaces is not going to solve the problem and the UN needs to show that it can both talk and act with China and Russia firmly alongside the US in a renewed commitment and partnership for global peace.