Goodbye Unions, Hello Inequality

There has been a trend of union berating that has been present for decades now. It is especially prevalent among conservatives, which is unsurprising, but in my experience also widely held among the mainstream. At the same time there is also a welcome concern about income inequality which has seen dramatic increases. The culprits of rising inequality are numerous and include everything from tax regimes that favour the wealthy, to the effects of increased trade liberalization. Paramount among these however, as well as the focus of this entry is unionization. It is not an accident that declining unionization happened concurrently with increasing inequality.

It may not be initially intuitive why unions contribute to greater equality. As a result of their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their workers for higher wages, unions have had a strong contribution on maintaining a middle-class. The same middle-class whose gradual demise is lamented today. In fact, union’s representation is heavily concentrated among middle-class workers. This has positive spillover effects for entire sectors, even for non-unionized employees. When unions at one workplace secure higher wages and better working conditions, competing companies are pressured into matching this to ensure they do not loose workers and to discourage their own workers from unionizing. Critics of unions, foremost among them economist Milton Friedman retort that while resulting in higher wages, unions have the deleterious effect of fewer available jobs. It is also widely believed that much outsourcing can be attributed to unions which increase the cost of domestic labour, and make labour abroad for everything from call centres to computer programming more appealing.

There is no question that unions are not perfect. Economic doctrine establishes that there are trade-offs and Mr. Friedman might have had a legitimate claim that unionization has led to less jobs. Having full employment by sending workers to poor conditions might not be desirable either however. To use a brief example, many recent jobs have been created by retail goliath Wal-Mart. Wal-Marts in Ohio held food drives for their employees for thanksgiving because wages were too low for most employees to be able to afford holiday Turkeys for their families. Wal-Mart unsurprisingly has been a flash point for unionization with the company determined to ensure that workers do not unionize. I think many people would argue that these are not the types of jobs and working conditions that should be encouraged. Again, unions are often subject to bad management, ineffectively representing their workers, and are only representing their own interests. When large American unions support the Keystone XL pipeline they are not taking into account the environmental implications, they are simply interested in the jobs it could lead to for their employees. The flip side is that companies repeatedly suffer similar problems but no one advocates for the elimination of corporations. The fact that unions sometimes have problems does not circumscribe their important role in worker representation and helping in an economy-wide manner to greater equality.

While it is difficult to ascertain exactly how much of the upswing in economic inequality is the result of decreasing union presence, researchers at Harvard have tried to quantify this. They used data from the population survey from 1973-2007 in the US, during which time union membership collapsed from 34% to 8% of private sector employees. They conclude that a fifth to a third of growth in inequality during this timeframe was determined by the decline in organized labour. The trend to decreasing unionization has been slower in Canada but like our neighbours in the USA and UK the development has been ever-present. Perhaps one of the most striking visual representations of this trend and its economic effects are found in the following graph from the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank in the US.

The question is why this is happening? And while once again there are several factors, government policy is a significant reason. Instead of taking serious steps to tackle excessive levels of inequality which should include a healthy organized labour movement, policy has been routinely anti-union. Scott Walker the governor of Wisconsin might be the most famous anti-union activist. He is not alone however, so called “right to work” legislation is spreading in the US. The tenants behind right to work are enticing. Most workers do not particularly like having part of their salary taken away in the form of union dues. If workers have the option of opting out of their union as this legislation enshrines many will choose to do so. This law is pernicious because it undercuts the union’s bargaining position and effectively guts all unions in the states which have this law enforced. Canada is not immune from Ideological laws that hamper the middle-class by attacking unions. Russ Hiebert a little known conservative MP from White Rock has introduced bill C-377. This bill had the support of the Conservative caucus but is mercifully being held up and gutted in the Senate. This represents one of the few moments the Senate has been anything other than a wasteful repository for partisan faithful and actually served a purpose. This bill apparently aims to make unions transparent. This sounds great, but is terrible. It imposes extremely onerous requirements that apply to unions and no one else. These include a minimum of 24 different detailed statements, including reporting any transaction over $5,000. These extremely costly requirements would place more burden of “transparency” on unions than any other group in Canada including companies, non-profits, even government departments themselves face less requirements. The fact is this bill is not necessary, by law unions must make annual financial statements to their members and provide necessary financial disclosures publicly, as well as being democratically accountable to their members. Mr. Hiebert ostensibly states that the reason for this bill is because unions receive public funding. Shockingly we are still awaiting the announcement that oil companies and agri-business that receive millions in government subsidies will be under the same scrutiny.

Unions are increasingly under attack accelerating the decline of organized labour that has been taking place for years. Many still view unions as antiquated and archaic, if that is the case than apparently adequate economic equality and a thriving middle class are antiquated as well. 

The Olympics and Russian Crimes in Chechnya

Russia has been in the spotlight recently over a myriad of issues, many of which have been heightened due to the upcoming Olympics in Sochi. This is important, Russia has many human rights abuses to atone for under the present leadership. Russian President (for life) Vladimir Putin is under intense pressure and has released many political prisoners. These range from Greenpeace activists to a former Russian oligarch who fell out of favour with Mr. Putin. While many political prisoners have been released in the past weeks, too many still rest in Russia’s prison archipelago. The Olympics have also put pressure on laws contrary to homosexual rights, more explicitly legislation banning “homosexual propaganda”. While perhaps less directly related to the Olympics, Mr. Putin’s persistence in maintaining Syria as an ally in the face of horrific atrocities has been widely criticized. Finally, a subject that was broached on this blog is the situation in Ukraine. Russia is playing off Ukrainian reliance on trade and cheap gas to keep this nation within Moscow’s orbit, this has also been widely panned. Conspicuously absent from this list is the Chechen situation and the rampant human rights abuses there.

That is not to say that Chechens have been completely excluded from the news cycle. Rather infamously, the Boston Marathon bombing was the work of Chechens (though their ties to Chechnya were tenuous). Of late, the bombing in Volgograd appears to originate from the North Caucasus (the region that Chechnya is in). This has raised concerns of security for the Sochi Olympics, which is understandable since the games will be a prime target for terrorist acts. This story is not as one sided as it seems however, and there is a complete vacuum regarding the plight of Chechens. Terrorist acts are never tolerable and Chechens, especially Islamists have committed many atrocities. These include bombings in Moscow subways and even attacks on schools. These are often targeted by “black widows” the term for the predominantly female suicide bombers who commit these violent acts after they have lost their spouse (along with undoubtedly many other family members). Unfortunately atrocities are not one sided in this case, and Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union has been responsible for some hideous carnage.

As a brief digression, some background is important. Chechnya along with other former members of the Soviet Union declared their independence after the collapse of the USSR. This was not to last however, due to Chechnya’s slightly different status Russia saw it not as a former Soviet Socialist Republic, but as part of its territory. This resulted in a first Chechen war from 1994-1996. In the lead up to this war and immediately following it Chechnya had a democratically elected government that was quite moderate. In the period before the second Chechen war started however, the creeping tide of radical Islam started to take hold. This was largely felt in the presence of foreign Wahhabi troops. These Wahhabis support a puritanical version of Islam and receive much of their support from Saudi Arabia (basically like Al-Qaeda). This lead to many clashes between moderate Chechen groups and largely foreign Wahhabis in the inter-war period. The second war commenced in 1999 and effectively ended in 2009. Contrary to the first war which saw the shocking victory for Chechen rebels, this one saw Russian victory and the reassertion of Russian control in this territory.

That Russian control did not come without a price however. Credible reports, reported by Amnesty International detail indiscriminate shelling and bombing of towns. Perhaps more heinous, civilians and medical teams were specifically targeted by Russian troops. In addition, hundreds of civilians and Prisoners of War were extra-judicially executed. This led to untold numbers of mass graves, the current count is approximately 60 but it is assumed thousands more are buried. Russia has an official policy of not exhuming or searching for these graves, this helps expedite a process of war crimes denial. In order to find some recourse in the face of Russian orchestrated impunity Chechen victims appealed to the Council of Europe’s European Court of Human Rights. This court has ruled against Russia stating that it has violated many human rights laws. These horrors were responded to by often equally objectionable acts, particularly from the radical Islamic elements of the resistance. In my view, the brutality of the Russian invasion caused extremism to flourish and made the problem of radical Islam even rifer in Chechnya.  Mr. Putin was President during this period up until declaring victory in 2009. His policies have not improved during his present tenure.

Human rights activists in Chechnya were awarded the 2013 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders. This award is given by ten of the most influential human rights organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. It was awarded to “Joint Mobile Group” who have given themselves the task of aiming to bring to justice those who perpetrate forced disappearances, extrajudicial executions and torture in Chechnya. This award is significant and well deserved. The state of Chechnya in the aftermath of the second war with Putin’s counterinsurgency campaign is marred by abduction, arbitrary detention and torture. Their bravery is clear, in 2009 several of the most prominent human rights defenders in Chechnya were abducted and executed, that fate could easily follow these brave crusaders. This is not to mention the persistent plight of ordinary Chechens under Russia.

International events with the prestige of the Olympics are critical in galvanizing international condemnation for abuses of all kinds. This has already begun with the release of political prisoners, the spotlight on Russia’s anti-gay law, and perhaps closer attention to Russian foreign policy. This has not happened with what is perhaps the most blatant of Russia’s human rights abuses. The Global community cannot in good conscience ignore Chechnya, these people should not be regarded as simply Muslim terrorists (though some are and those should be condemned) but as victims of horrific Russian policy. Hopefully the world will take note of this soon, the likelihood of that happening unfortunately seems slim. 

The Kurdish Dimension to Syria

The Syrian Civil War has drifted in and out of the news ever since its inception, but an important new front is beginning to take shape. This is the Kurdish dimension to the war. As always however, before delving into this topic some context is vital.

The Syrian Civil War itself most likely requires fairly little contextualization, but a brief review of the major forces involved would be sensible. Bashar al-Assad received his position after his father’s passing, and refuses to surrender the family legacy. Internationally he is supported by Iran and Hezbollah (the armed Shia political party in Lebanon). Both of these Middle-East partners will support Assad to the end since their interests rely so heavily on him. Iran, because Syria is their sole ally in the Middle-East, and Hezbollah because their weapons and support all flow through Syria. They are joined by Russia which under Putin’s reign wants as much sway in the international arena as possible. Syria under Assad is a holdover puppet state from the Soviet era and represents an ideal foothold of control with which Putin can exert his clout.

On the other side the West timidly supports the Rebels, largely out of disdain for Mr. Assad. Their support has been primarily in the form of non-lethal assistance, which, as of today, both the UK and US have partially cut off because of reports that this equipment was falling into the hands of Islamists. This brings us to the radical Islamist contingent in this conflict. This is largely made up of foreign jihadis fighting on behalf of The Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Syria, two al-Qaeda linked groups. These are supported by Jihadis worldwide and without question a large amount of Saudi Arabian encouragement. In fact, the Gulf Countries in general support the rebels as all see Syria and Iran as a threat. In addition, all of the Gulf countries are Sunni led in stark opposition to Shia Iran and Syria. Qatar is the home base for the Syrian National Coalition (SNC), the umbrella for the major non-Islamist rebels nominally leading the fight against Assad. The SNC has official backing from the Gulf countries, as well as Turkey and the West.

This brings us to the oft overlooked group that has not been mentioned above, the Kurds. Kurds are the largest stateless group on Earth and are found in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. I have a level of personal experience in this subject having spent some (albeit short) time in the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Turkey, as well as encounters with Kurds while in Iran. Kurds in Iraq have a regional government with a large amount of autonomy. Upon crossing the border with Turkey I met a Kurdish border guard, most important institutions in Iraqi Kurdistan are maintained by Kurdish authorities, and the pervasive Peshmerga presence (Kurdish militia literally translated to “those who face death”) assures a completely safe and peaceful oasis in conflict torn Iraq. This local autonomy came about after Saddam Hussein horrified the world with his genocidal nerve gas campaign against his Kurdish population, and forced a US led no-fly zone. The area protected by that no-fly zone in Northern Iraq from 1991 till the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 allowed for the establishment of what is today Iraqi Kurdistan. In Turkey, moves have been made at negotiating a peace deal with the PKK, the Kurdish group there responsible for many terrorist attacks in the past. The PKK wants greater autonomy as well, and undoubtedly aspires to what was attained in Northern Iraq.

This long prelude finally leads to the current situation in Syria. A Kurdish militia closely aligned with the aforementioned PKK in Turkey has taken over large areas of Syria from Islamists. Mainstream media often mentions that there are divisions among rebel fighters in Syria, largely between moderates and Islamists, but the Kurdish addition to this battle is crucial. At a time when Islamists increasingly seem to be making gains among the rebels at the expense of the Free Syrian Army, (supported by the SNC and Western Countries) the Kurdish PYD militant group has been incredibly successful combating the Islamists. Many villages have recently transferred from al-Qaeda linked hands into Kurdish hands in Hasakah province, which has further cemented gains for the PYD in Syria’s Kurdish dominated northeast. Even more strikingly, the PYD has announced that they are establishing provisional self-rule in the Kurdish territories they have annexed. This again is clearly a step towards an Iraqi-Kurdistan style government within whatever future Syria develops.

The SNC immediately rejected this bid for self-rule and said it goes against their efforts to build a unified independent Syria. Some rhetoric among moderate rebels has even gone so far as to label this Kurdish group the enemy now. There has also been much questioning about collusion between Assad and the Kurds. The PYD has repeatedly denied this, but some question whether Assad’s forces retreated too easily when the PYD moved into government controlled areas, and fighting between the government and the PYD had been scarce. Many Kurds were initially tepid in their opposition to the Syrian government and this has caused some of the current distrust. It is crucial to mention that many Kurds in Syria do not support the PYD, and there are Kurds within the SNC as well, though they tend to also favour at least some greater autonomy for their people.

In Iraq, when there was an uprising among Sunnis and the war in Kuwait, Kurds took advantage and went to war with Saddam Hussein. Similarly, Kurdish militias are now working to carve out their territory within conflict torn Syria. In Turkey, a long running campaign against the government comprising of many terrorist attacks finally appears to be leading to peace and more Kurdish sovereignty. As a distinct ethnicity Kurds are increasingly exerting control over their territories, and dreams of a united Kurdistan still resonate. Kurds are generally secular, pro-Western and increasingly influential. Adding to their geopolitical importance, Kurds in Iraq and Syria happen to be in areas with very significant oil reserves. In Iraqi-Kurdistan which serves as the bastion of safety in Iraq, this is already being taken advantage of.

Kurdish gains in Syria are significant and should not be ignored. The world’s largest stateless ethnic group is slowly building up a state and the ramifications across the Middle-East are huge. The gains Kurds have made in Syria and their declaration of autonomy ought not to go unnoticed. Though too often overlooked in history, Kurds are on the way to being one of the most important groups in the region.

Burma's Muslim Problem

Burma (Myanmar) is going through a lot of change, much of it for the better. The country after decades of military dictatorship is finally opening up and there is a lot to be hopeful of in this nation. There is however a very ugly side to developments in Burma for the Muslim minority community there.

Buddhist extremism has been spreading across the country. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced and many killed. Villages have been burned to the ground, mosques raided and schools attacked. As an example of the widespread violence a middle school in Meiktila was stormed and students and teachers massacred while police officers and a mob watched chanting “kill them”. This violence is largely brought on by the Buddhist extremists behind the 969 movement. These monks support religious purity and have been doing much to incite violence against Muslims. Time magazine did an excellent cover story on radical Buddhism, but I still feel the gravity or even presence of these atrocities is not resonating with people here.

There are in my mind three major reasons for this. The first is an inexplicable and dangerous romanticization of Buddhism. Buddhists are treated as imminently peaceful, we think of innocuous New Age yuppies who have “Free Tibet” bumper stickers, do Yoga and are also Buddhist. Buddhists, the thinking goes, can never do anything bad because they have a peaceful religion. When bringing up the topic of Burmese Muslims massacres to peers, almost without fail the typical reaction is one of disbelief because Buddhists do not hurt people. There however seems to be a forgetfulness that other religions which have had horrible things done in their name, such as Christianity or Islam, also preach peacefulness. I cannot think of a single major religion that is intrinsically violent yet for some reason Buddhism is treated as the only one with some sort of special privilege. Now to be clear, I think skepticism is healthy, and many horrible things have and are continuing to be done in the name of religion, this is indisputable. I also believe in tolerance for religions, including Buddhism. The point is that because of a belief in a bizarre special status where Buddhism is the sole religion that cannot be twisted into extremism, it has made the story of the massacres against Muslims in Burma that much harder to reach general consciousness in the West.

The second element if this is very closely related to the first. Many have the unfortunate tendency, whether conscious or not, to think of Muslims as the extremists and therefore find it very difficult to see them as victims. This makes it even more difficult for ordinary people to relate to as a result of such constant inundation from the media of Muslims being terrorists. This along with a preconceived notion that Buddhists must be peaceful cannot help but make this story incredibly difficult to penetrate the mainstream news cycles.

Finally, a huge portion of blame lies on the Burmese authorities and pro-democracy supporters. Thein Sein, the man who currently leads the military junta in Burma has done little to quell the violence and the military, as well as the police have done little but watch as people are butchered in front of them. This does much to taint his positive record as a reformer within the country. The most egregious silence has however been from Aung San Suu Kyi. The pro-democracy campaigner and Nobel Peace Prize laureate has been deafeningly silent on the issue. Despite widespread criticism of her lack of engagement in the issue Ms. Suu Kyi has refused to take a stand on the atrocities happening in her country. Her unwillingness to speak against what is happening is disgusting for someone given the honour of the Nobel Peace Prize. The silence of these important people within Burma and the international reputation they have is another critical reason why this story has not been covered in more depth.

Burma is at a critical juncture in its history, there is a lot of promise for this newly opening nation. With this promise comes a current devastating situation for a minority population. The West has done much to encourage democratic reforms, this is important but cannot be done while casting a blind eye to the horrors confronting so many Burmese. None of us should let the optimism for the future of this country hide the very real terror that too many Burmese are living in right now.

Ukraine: Europe's Battleground

Events have recently come to a head in Ukraine with the forced police dispersion of protesters early on Saturday morning, and calls for more protests and a nationwide strike from the opposition. All this because the Ukrainian president decided not to sign an association agreement with the EU. This agreement is not even that major an event, it is the first in a very long and slow process of EU membership, and by no means guarantees entry into the EU club. It does little but offer Free Trade and the prospect of potential future integration.  

Before really examining this issue however, you would be forgiven for not having played especially close attention to Ukraine, so some backstory to this would be prudent. Russia has created a self-styled "Eurasian Union" meant to compete with the EU and preserve Russian influence, primarily in ex-Soviet countries. At the moment the only two members (aside from Russia) are Belarus and Kazakhstan. The former has the dubious distinction of being Europe's last dictatorship and the latter has an unfortunate tendency of torturing those that oppose its autocratic leader. Unsurprisingly, Ukrainians are not interested in joining this group, though Russia desperately wants them to. Ukraine's not so distant past under the auspices of the Soviet Union as one of the poorest and most abused (as well as arguably being the target of genocide under Stalin) ex-Soviet Republics is not easily forgotten. Russian action to date has not helped ameliorate the perception Ukrainians have towards Russia. Turning off the gas in the middle of winter in 2009, when Ukrainians desperately needed to heat their homes and generally using natural gas as a lever to control Ukraine has not enamored the Ukrainian public to Russia. I saw this first hand on a recent visit to Kyiv in which national magazine covers had a depiction of Russian President Putin with a knife to the throat of Ukrainian President Yanukovych.  

So basically, Russia has a lot of power over Ukraine and Ukrainians (as with most former USSR republics) want closer ties to the West and the EU. Amid threats of trade sanctions and the usual gas politics, President Yanukovych stated he could not sign the EU association agreement and gave in to Russia. What is especially interesting here however is not the Russian pressure exerted on Ukraine, which is the usual in this era of increased efforts to exert international influence by Russia, or Ukraine's response of acquiescing to Russian demands, but in fact the EU reaction.

The EU has successfully integrated and created common policies in many areas, but foreign affairs has not been one of them. Each individual country in the EU still has what is in effect full control over their foreign policy. Some moves were made to create a common EU foreign policy. Chief among them was the creation of the External Action Service. This is meant to be the EU department of foreign affairs and has “embassies” around the world. They do very little though (with the notable exception that the EU EAS plays an important role in trade deals, which are an exclusive competency of the EU), and Catherine Ashton the head of this department, is also mostly useless. She states common EU positions, which are usually self-evident things such as saying maybe it would be nice if North Korea stopped threatening everyone with Nuclear Weapons, but never anything of substance. The only significant political achievements she has had in this role were brokering an agreement between Kosovo and Serbia, and assisting in the nuclear discussion between Iran and the P5+1. Both of these roles were essentially as a mediator and are a far cry from exhibiting strong EU foreign policy.

But things might be changing with Ukraine. In response to Yanukovych's announcement that he would not be seeking the association agreement in Ukraine, the EU immediately dispatched the Commissioner for Enlargement to apply pressure on Yanukovych to change his mind. Even more starkly at the summit in Vilnius Lithuania, where the deal was supposed to have been signed, EU Commission President Barroso has some very strong words for Russia. He said Russia should not be handed a veto over sovereign Ukraine's relations with the rest of Europe. He also stated that this decision was a "road to nowhere" and that "the Ukrainian people should be disappointed". Enlargement Commissioner Füle said that "if you blink in front of Russia, you always end up in trouble, Yanukovych blinked too soon." It is worth noting that all EU countries support Ukraine adopting the Association agreement. Still, in my view this is an EU initiative, with the EU taking the lead and directing, not following member-states as usual. And while some countries eagerly want to encourage more countries to move towards EU membership, many others look with trepidation towards adding more countries to crisis prone Europe.

Ukraine is hugely important, it is the largest and most strategically important of the ex-Soviet Republics not clearly aligned with Russia or the EU. The EU has begun to show that it can pursue an aggressive and independent foreign policy, at least in this area. For all those in Ukraine, and across the Eastern Europe block who so clearly yearn for a future in Europe, hopefully EU leaders will continue to demonstrate strength in the face of Russia's bullying.