WHAT MUST BE SAID

WHAT MUST BE SAID Why have I kept silent, held back so long, on something openly practised in war games, at the end of which those of us who survive will at best be footnotes? It's the alleged right to a first strike that could destroy an Iranian people subjugated by a loudmouth and gathered in organized rallies, because an atom bomb may be being developed within his arc of power. Yet why do I hesitate to name that other land in which for years – although kept secret – a growing nuclear power has existed beyond supervision or verification, subject to no inspection of any kind? This general silence on the facts, before which my own silence has bowed, seems to me a troubling, enforced lie, leading to a likely punishment the moment it's broken: the verdict "Anti-semitism" falls easily. But now that my own country, brought in time after time for questioning about its own crimes, profound and beyond compare, has delivered yet another submarine to Israel (in what is purely a business transaction, though glibly declared an act of reparation) whose speciality consists in its ability to direct nuclear warheads toward an area in which not a single atom bomb has yet been proved to exist, its feared existence proof enough, I'll say what must be said. But why have I kept silent till now? Because I thought my own origins, tarnished by a stain that can never be removed, meant I could not expect Israel, a land to which I am, and always will be, attached, to accept this open declaration of the truth. Why only now, grown old, and with what ink remains, do I say: Israel's atomic power endangers an already fragile world peace? Because what must be said may be too late tomorrow; and because – burdened enough as Germans – we may be providing material for a crime that is foreseeable, so that our complicity will not be expunged by any of the usual excuses. And granted: I've broken my silence because I'm sick of the West's hypocrisy; and I hope too that many may be freed from their silence, may demand that those responsible for the open danger we face renounce the use of force, may insist that the governments of both Iran and Israel allow an international authority free and open inspection of the nuclear potential and capability of both. No other course offers help to Israelis and Palestinians alike, to all those living side by side in enmity in this region occupied by illusions, and ultimately, to all of us. Günter Grass The English translation was published by the Guardian. Translated by Breon Mitchell. You can read the poem in the original German here.  This poem was amended on 10 and 11 April 2012 after it was revised by the translator. This was further amended on 13 April 2012 to include a link to the original poem in German.

 Published on Global Research Website.

Explaining the F-35 fiasco: The 'Yes Minister Defence' | rabble.ca

A Conservative Member of Parliament from Alberta has helpfully offered what we might term the "Yes Minister Defence" for his government's spectacular mishandling of the F-35 fiasco.
The Conservatives were just too dumb to understand the F-35 file, Brent Rathgeber, the MP Edmonton-St. Albert, who is best known for his belief that the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. should be run as a charity, seems to be suggesting in a recent edition of his blog.
Lest Rathgeber assert that this characterization of his April 5 post is one of those periodic defamations he is forced to endure as our public-spirited Parliamentarian, let us quote from Brent's Blog directly:
"As I watched Bob Rae's admittedly thoughtful question of Privilege tabled earlier today in the House of Commons alleging Ministerial impropriety regarding the F-35 Fighter Jet (non) procurement, I was reminded of the British sitcom/mocumentary 'Yes Minister'," Rathgeber wrote. "In it, a rather hapless politician is routinely ‘managed’ by his more intelligent Deputy Minister. Although a clever British satirical sitcom, 'Yes Minister' parodies the reality that the bureaucracy has the expertise and experience that few politicians will ever achieve in any given subject matter."
Now, while I have no doubt Defence Minister Peter MacKay will not be pleased to learn he has been depicted by one of his caucus mates as "rather hapless" and by implication less intelligent than his departmental staff, a charitable interpretation of the F-35 procurement mess would suggest this is a fair comment on Rathgeber's part.
That is, at least, to those of us who are not persuaded that MacKay merely intentionally misled us, the hapless members of the public, because he thought we were too stupid to figure out the multi-billion-dollar costs of the single-engine stealth fighter that needs a million-dollar paint job every time you have to change a spark plug and add a quart of oil, and also doesn't carry enough fuel to intercept a Russian bomber until it's practically within sight of the Peace Tower.
For his part, according to the Toronto Star, MacKay says he knew the so-called fighters would cost $10-billion or so more than Ottawa told taxpayers, and he didn't mean to mislead us when he didn't tell us about it. He just didn't feel he needed to say anything because it was only an accounting difference, he explained to CTV’s Question Period.

Getting back to Rathgeber's novel Yes Minister Defence, the Edmonton-area MP concedes that “something as significant as a $10-billion underestimate in Canada’s then largest military procurement would theoretically call for a Minister’s resignation.” (Emphasis added.)
However, he asks, is it really reasonable to expect the minister to resign "given the highly technical and unique market regarding military procurement." Apparently he thinks not, as he goes on: "is it realistic to expect politicians to have the requisite technical expertise regarding said purchase?"
After all, he explained, there are only a few makers of multi-billion-dollar stealth fighters with radios that don't work when it's cold, or too close to the North Pole, or something, and only a few governments rich enough and dumb enough to contemplate buying them. So "this is not a normal operating market and therefore the suggestion of a truly competitive process is largely irrelevant."
Moreover, Rathgeber suggests, this whole matter was really all the fault of a bunch of nameless Department of Defence bureaucrats. He asks, complete with double question marks: "Is Parliament entitled to accurate information to hold the Government to account and assure the public purse is spent wisely? Or can a bureaucracy with superior technical expertise 'manage' Ministers and in turn Parliament with impunity??”
Most of us would agree that the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second ought to be no. Regardless, from MacKay's response to the second question we can infer that he did understand the difference and that Rathgeber's attempt to pass the buck (hundreds of millions of 'em, actually) to the civil service doesn’t really fly, as it were.
However, Rathgeber's blog does contain a couple of other tidbits worth repeating. First is his admission that the allegedly perfect workings of the market, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper believes in with such near-religious faith, are not so perfect when the requirements are too technical for mere ministers of the Crown to understand.
Actually, a lot of us who do not share the PM's market-fundamentalist convictions have been saying this for a long time, and it is nice to hear it said by a member of the Reform Party caucus in Ottawa.
Second, Rathgeber notes that given the economic relevance of military procurement contracts so huge the sums are barely comprehensible even to those of us who are not members of Cabinet, they are also used "for non-military purposes such as industrial benefits, regional development and job creation."
This is a point we can heartily agree is a reasonable role of government, although in the knowledge that it is a worthwhile activity of the sort usually dismissed by Rathgeber's caucus colleagues as "picking winners and losers."
It is good to know that at least one member of Harper's caucus understands that such matters as industrial benefits, regional development and job creation are too important to be left to the vagaries of "the market."
Of course, none of this answers why the Conservatives were so set on purchasing an aircraft that so manifestly does not meet Canada's defence needs.
This post also appears on David Climenhaga's blog, Alberta Diary.

Explaining the F-35 fiasco: The 'Yes Minister Defence' | rabble.ca