TILMA a bad deal for Saskatoon; city administrative report raises many concerns

On April 28, 2006, the Provinces of British Columbia and Alberta signed the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement or “TILMA” as it is more commonly known.

The agreement is comprehensive covering all aspects of government with a key goal to streamline and harmonize standards and regulations that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility. It is an exercise in massive deregulation. Some have said it is a step towards deeper integration with the United States.

An administrative report by Saskatoon’s city solicitor, tabled at city council’s Feb. 26, 2007, meeting, reviews “the possible effects of a TILMA-type agreement on The City of Saskatoon.”

According to the solicitor “the right of cities to local choice has been considerably strengthened in recent years by both the courts and legislation.” It appears, though, that TILMA would strip Saskatchewan municipalities of that right.

One example of citizens exercising their right to local choice is through petitions and referendums. In Saskatoon, the issues of Sunday shopping and a downtown casino were decided in referendums. With TILMA, “referendums would not have recognition or priority.” Citizens would lose this critical component of direct democracy.

Business subsidies, smoking bylaws, residential housing standards and the enhancement of downtown are just some of the issues the solicitor’s report shows that would be impacted by TILMA.

“Cities like Saskatoon, which have a long history of doing things first and doing things differently, will be at the greatest risk of TILMA challenges,” said the solicitor.

Disturbing is the fact that municipalities in British Columbia and Alberta were not consulted on TILMA before it was signed and both B.C. and Alberta’s assumptions on the effects of TILMA on municipalities “were made without any study or consultation.”

In her summary the solicitor wrote, “Based on the information that we have to date, it is…possible to assume that TILMA cannot be adjusted to fit cities.”

Despite pressure from the usual sources the Government of Saskatchewan has not yet signed TILMA.

In a May 1, 2006, news release the right-wing Saskatchewan Party’s Leader Brad Wall called on the governing NDP to join the Western trade pact. Wall then spent a good portion of question period in the Saskatchewan Legislature on May 2 & 3 criticizing the NDP for not jumping on board the trade deal train.

As expected conservative think tanks like the Fraser Institute and Canada West Foundation suggest Saskatchewan should sign the deal.

“All other Canadian jurisdictions would be well advised to follow the path of the two western-most provinces,” said the Fraser Institute in July/August 2006.

In a January 16,2007, Saskatoon StarPhoenix opinion piece the CWF said, “Saskatchewan should show leadership within Canada and become the first province to join B.C. and Alberta's Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.”

Fortunately, for Saskatoon, the report by the city solicitor seems to demonstrate that TILMA would be a bad deal for Saskatchewan municipalities and is one that should be avoided.

Western oil giants and the control of Iraq's massive petroleum reserves

New York Daily News

Oily truth emerges in Iraq

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Throughout nearly four years of the daily mayhem and carnage in Iraq, President Bush and his aides in the White House have scoffed at even the slightest suggestion that the U.S. military occupation has anything to do with oil.

The President presumably would have us all believe that if Iraq had the world's second-largest supply of bananas instead of petroleum, American troops would still be there.

Now comes new evidence of the big prize in Iraq that rarely gets mentioned at White House briefings.

A proposed new Iraqi oil and gas law began circulating last week among that country's top government leaders and was quickly leaked to various Internet sites - before it has even been presented to the Iraqi parliament.

Under the proposed law, Iraq's immense oil reserves would not simply be opened to foreign oil exploration, as many had expected. Amazingly, executives from those companies would actually be given seats on a new Federal Oil and Gas Council that would control all of Iraq's reserves.

In other words, Chevron, ExxonMobil, British Petroleum and the other Western oil giants could end up on the board of directors of the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, while Iraq's own national oil company would become just another competitor.

The new law would grant the council virtually all power to develop policies and plans for undeveloped oil fields and to review and change all exploration and production contracts.

Since most of Iraq's 73 proven petroleum fields have yet to be developed, the new council would instantly become a world energy powerhouse.

"We're talking about trillions of dollars of oil that are at stake," said Raed Jarrar, an independent Iraqi journalist and blogger who obtained an Arabic copy of the draft law and posted an English-language translation on his Web site over the weekend.

Take, for example, the massive Majnoon field in southern Iraq near the Iranian border, which contains an estimated 20 billion barrels. Before Saddam Hussein was toppled by the U.S. invasion in 2003, he had granted a $4 billion contract to French oil giant TotalFinaElf to develop the field.

In the same way, the Iraqi dictator signed contracts with Chinese, Russian, Korean, Italian and Spanish companies to develop 10 other big oil fields once international sanctions against his regime were lifted.

The big British and American companies had been shut out of Iraq, thanks to more than a decade of U.S. sanctions against Saddam.

But if the new law passes, those companies will be the ones reviewing those very contracts and any others.

"Iraq's economic security and development will be thrown into question with this law," said Antonia Juhasz of Oil Change International, a petroleum industry watchdog group. "It's a radical departure not only from Iraq's existing structure but from how oil is managed in most of the world today."

Throughout the developing world, national oil companies control the bulk of oil production, though they often develop joint agreements with foreign commercial oil groups.

But under the proposed law, the government-owned Iraqi National Oil Co. "will not get any preference over foreign companies," Juhasz said.

The law must still be presented to the Iraqi parliament. Given the many political and religious divisions in the country, its passage is hardly guaranteed.

The main religious and ethnic groups are all pushing to control contracts and oil revenues for their regions, while the Bush administration is seeking more centralized control.

While the politicians in Washington and Baghdad bicker to carve up the real prize, and just what share Big Oil will get, more Iraqi civilians and American soldiers die each each day - for freedom, we're told.

jgonzalez@nydailynews.com

http://www.nydailynews.com

Heritage Canada Foundation gives Saskatoon black eye; downtown Legion building, owned by Remai Ventures Inc., on endangered list

Saskatoon was in the national spotlight recently but for the wrong reason. In conjunction with Heritage Day on Feb. 19 the Heritage Canada Foundation (HCF) released its Top Ten Most Endangered Places in Canada list. The Royal Canadian Legion, Branch #63 in Saskatoon had the dubious distinction of being on the list. Residents wouldn’t know it though because local media didn’t report it.

The list of endangered Canadian places also include the Art Deco Vogue Theatre in Vancouver and Creston’s downtown grain elevators; the modernist Central Pentecostal Tabernacle in Edmonton; Winnipeg’s King Building; the former lamp factory at 48 Abell Street in Toronto; the historic Sir Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine House in Montréal; Nova Scotia’s Seal Island lighthouse; the town of Tilting—a national historic site—in Newfoundland; and the Yukon’s Herschel Island, an important cultural heritage site threatened by conditions attributed to global climate change.

Regarding the Legion building, which was designed by prominent Saskatoon architect David Webster and built in 1929 by veterans of the First World War, the HCF said: “the solid brick building is the last remaining heritage building in Saskatoon’s most historic area along the riverbank, where the city was founded. It is also the area in which developer Remai Ventures is proposing a hotel and spa complex as part of a larger riverfront redevelopment project.”

“Many supporters believe there are external and interior aspects of the building that lend themselves very easily to adaptive use and incorporation into a redevelopment plan. The Saskatchewan Architectural Heritage Society sees the demise of the Legion building as another prime example of big development and city politics trumping vision and heritage.”

Sadly, if the Legion building is demolished it could make next year’s list of worst heritage losses in Canada.

Conservatives desperate to sell Afghan war to Canadians; $76,000 spent for internal report

To sell Canada on war, try `hope' but not `liberty'

Focus groups advised Harper not to echo Bush

February 17, 2007
Toronto Star

Allan Woods
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–The Conservative government has been "too American" in its attempts to justify the Afghan war to a skeptical Canadian public, according to an internal report commissioned by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The extensive critique of the Tory communications strategy on the war comes from a series of cross-country focus groups conducted in November 2006 at a cost of almost $76,000.

The study, obtained by the Toronto Star, found that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was "echoing" U.S. President George W. Bush in his attempt to explain why Canadian soldiers are fighting and dying in the country's southern province.

Harper has drawn a link between the NATO-led mission and the 24 Canadians who were killed in the collapse of New York's World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor recently described the fight as "retribution" for the terrorist attacks.

"Participants associated this message with public relations positioning – it was seen as echoing the kind of messaging American officials have made regarding Iraq," wrote the report's authors, the Strategic Counsel public opinion firm.

The report lists "vocabulary/terms/phrases/concepts to reinforce" the message that the government is right about its commitment to the war in Afghanistan. They include "rebuilding," "restoring," "reconstruction," "hope," "opportunity" and "enhancing the lives of women and children."

Words and phrases to avoid include: "freedom, democracy, liberty – in combination this phrase comes across as sounding too American."

Strategic Counsel also advised that the government "avoid developing a line of argumentation too strongly based on values. While the value of human rights is strongly supported, there is a risk of appearing to be imposing Canadian values. Again, this is not seen to be the `Canadian way.'"

The report also found the Tory government's tight-lipped approach to the war has raised problems in the battle for public support. Part of the problem is the "absence of official government communication" about the mission.

That gap has been filled by "persistent negative media coverage" both in Canada and from reporters who are embedded with soldiers in southern Afghanistan.

Most of the 2,600 Canadian soldiers now serving in Afghanistan are based in the volatile Kandahar region.

Participants in the study said the government silence was interpreted as "a sign that things are not going well and that the government is trying to hide the grim reality from the Canadian public."

Negative media coverage coupled with government silence is "diminishing the intensity of support for the mission because advocates do not get the information they need to justify their support beyond a general sense that it is `the right thing to do,'" the study said.

Public support for the mission in Afghanistan stood at 35 per cent in late December, the report said. It had been as high as 55 per cent in March 2006, before a deadly summer for Canadian soldiers.

Since sending troops to Afghanistan in 2002 as part of the U.S.-led war on terror, Canada has lost 44 soldiers and a diplomat – most of them killed last year.

Ambra Dickie, a spokesperson with Foreign Affairs, said the focus groups were conducted to help the government understand "Canadian attitudes and feelings" toward the mission.

"We tested a number of key themes and messages about the mission, derived from media coverage of the issue. This is standard practice ... on any public policy issue."

The report will provide ammunition to opposition parties, who have been critical of the mission.

It appears the taxpayer-funded study sought feedback from the focus groups on the sway of arguments made over the past few months by the NDP and the Liberals.

The NDP, for example, frequently points out the mission is unbalanced because the government spends $9 on combat efforts for every $1 on development.

"This statement gave many participants concerns, but was typically not seen as a rationale against Canada's involvement in Afghanistan," said the report.

NDP Leader Jack Layton's call last fall to engage in peace talks with the Taliban was written off as "simplistic, unrealistic and unworkable" in the 91-page report, entitled "Public Perceptions of Canada's Role in Afghanistan."

"The fact that they would spend $76,000 to try and get arguments to sell the war in Afghanistan to the Canadian public ... really indicates that the war is not saleable," said NDP defence critic Dawn Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam).

"To spend that kind of money just to counter the kinds of arguments that the opposition ... are putting forward is bizarre."

In November 2003, Auditor General Sheila Fraser called the previous Liberal government to account for buying polls – in contravention of government policy – that monitored party image, voting intentions and approval ratings of political leaders.

The Tory communications problems are compounded by "a general perception that this government is already closely aligned with the U.S. on other fronts," the report states.

To counter this, the Tories should seek opportunities to "underscore Canadian sovereignty" and quash the view there is an "overly-close, dominant-subservient" relationship between the two countries.

Liberal MP Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) said the existence of the report was "quite shocking," though he didn't take issue with its findings.

"The Taliban of 2007 is not the Taliban of 2001," said Martin, his party's foreign affairs critic.

It seems the government has heeded some of the tough-talking advice.

A section of the focus group examined words and pictures that were to be placed on the federal government's main website explaining Canada's involvement in Afghanistan.

Instead of references to threats or terrorism, which the study found only underscored the Harper-Bush link, there are pictures of children in schools, references to progress and development, and the explanation that Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government.

Royal Canadian Legion Building in Saskatoon tops endangered structures list; owner Remai Ventures Inc. might demolish historic 1929 landmark

Another black eye for Saskatoon on the heritage front as the Royal Canadian Legion Building on 19th Street East topped the Saskatchewan Architectural Heritage Society's 2007 Watch List of Endangered Structures. In February 2006 the owner of the building, Remai Ventures Inc., said it planned to demolish the historic landmark, which was built in 1929 by local veterans of the First World War.


King George Hotel makes endangered buildings list

Lori Coolican
The StarPhoenix

Saturday, February 17, 2007

For the second year in a row, a boarded-up downtown landmark has made the Saskatchewan Architectural Heritage Society's Watch List of endangered historical structures.

The King George Hotel appeared on the verge of a new life last September when Olstar Developments, a local company known for high-end refurbishments of historic properties, signed a tentative sales agreement with the hotel's owner, Vancouver-based Nazir Kassam, and announced plans to convert the building for residential use.

As of Friday, however, the sale had not been finalized.

Kassam failed to pay property taxes on the 95-year-old building for several years, leaving the city in a position to take over the title. Civic officials have been reluctant to do that while the owner was negotiating to sell, but the property can't change hands until all outstanding taxes and various other liens against it have been cleared up.

Kassam was about $600,000 in arrears on the hotel's taxes last July when he sold the attached parkade to a separate buyer with no connection to Olstar. He turned over the sale proceeds of $400,000 to the city to clear up the parkade's tax arrears, which sat at $175,000, and dedicated the rest to the outstanding arrears on the hotel.

When contacted by The StarPhoenix, Olstar partner Peter Olson said he would comment on the hotel's future Tuesday.

Once considered a classy hotel and night spot, the King George declined into shabbiness before saying goodbye to its last guest in 2003. The fire service issued a repair or demolish order on the building after a fire caused moderate damage three years ago.

The longer an old building like the King George stands vacant, "the more chance there is of it deteriorating to a point where it has to be taken down," said SAHS executive director Al Rosseker, who hopes Olson and his partner will take their plan for the hotel forward.

"It's not a renewable resource. There ain't going to be another Gathercole (building), there's not going to be another KG. Once they are gone, they're gone," he said.

Another downtown property, the Royal Canadian Legion building on 19th Street, is also on this year's watch list for the second year running. This time, it's the subject of a demolition alert.

The downtown Legion branch sold its longtime home in 2005 to Remai Ventures, the local company building a luxury spa hotel on adjacent land at River Landing. The Legion is required to vacate by the end of this month. No demolition date has been set, but construction of the hotel is slated to begin this summer.

Historical groups and some veterans opposed the sale, but "I'm not seeing a real public outcry, and I'm not seeing any surge in compassion by the developer to keep it," Rosseker said. "It's a grand old building. It's a shame, but at this point it's the age-old (question) of dollars for development versus heritage."

Noticeably missing from this year's watch list is the Traffic Bridge. The century-old steel trustle span had been closed to traffic for several months due to corrosion problems when it made last year's list, but since then the city has invested more than $600,000 on repairs to keep it in operation for another 20 years. History buffs remain anxious about the lack of any plan to paint the structure.

"It's preventative maintenance, and I would hope that (the city) would maybe come up with some kind of solution," Rosseker said. "Maybe they could get a paint company to sponsor it and try to get some kind of coating on the steel because it's out there in the elements, and it deteriorates."

lcoolican@sp.canwest.com

- - -

THE SASKATCHEWAN ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE SOCIETY'S 2007 WATCH LIST OF ENDANGERED STRUCTURES:

Royal Canadian Legion Building, 19th St. E., Saskatoon *Demolition Alert
Former Presutti's Restaurant/Market Mall, Lorne St., Regina *Demolition Alert
Gordon(Aldon) Block, 12th Ave., Regina *Demolition Alert
Grand Trunk Railway Bridge and Trestle, The Battlefords
Lasting Impressions Building, Main Street, Moose Jaw
CBK Radio Transmitter Building, Watrous
Fort San sanatorium, Fort Qu'Appelle
King George Hotel, 2nd Avenue North, Saskatoon
McCloy Creek Trestle Bridge, RM of Invergordon
Natatorium, Moose Jaw
Souris Valley Hospital, Weyburn

Removed from the Watch List in 2007:

Bell Barn, Indian Head. Restoration planning is now underway by a local group.
Harding House, Regina. Developer plans to sell or adapt for reuse instead of demolition.
Traffic Bridge, Saskatoon. City council resolved to rehabilitate and keep it open.

Ran with fact box "The Saskatchewan Architectural Heritage Society's 2007 Watch List of Endangered Structures:" which has been appended to the story.

© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2007

Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper fails to show up for Kyoto votes

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has missed two votes in the House of Commons concerning Kyoto and Canada's commitments to the accord.

Harper, a long time climate-change denier, failed to show up on February 5 and again on February 14.

"Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations," said Harper in a 2002 fundraising letter to his fellow members in the former Canadian Alliance party.

It seems clear that Harper has no intention of showing up to vote on the matter. Canada deserves better.


Honour Kyoto, House tells PM

February 15, 2007
Toronto Star

Allan Woods
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA–The Conservative government has been backed into a constitutional corner after the passage of an opposition bill in the House of Commons last night calling for Canada to meet its Kyoto targets.

Bill C-288 would force Environment Minister John Baird to present a climate change plan within 60 days, providing a map for Canada to meet Kyoto's greenhouse gas reduction targets. The treaty calls for emission levels at 6 per cent below 1990 levels – a drastic reduction from current levels.

Within three months of the bill's passage into law, the federal cabinet would have to set out regulations on the petroleum and auto sectors, and other polluters, to have them meet their Kyoto targets.

If no action is taken, individual Canadians, environmental groups, lawyers – anyone – could take the federal government to court for being afoul of the law, said Montreal Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, the sponsor of the private member's bill.

However, the Conservatives, who have called Kyoto targets impossible to meet, have given every indication they plan to ignore the bill.

But it is unclear how they can delay its implementation. In any event, a court challenge to force implementation would be a lengthy process, with any decision coming long after the next election. MPs voted 161-113 in favour of Bill C-288, allowing it to clear the last hurdle before entering the Liberal-dominated Senate. There, it is expected to be passed into law after being studied briefly by the environment and energy committee.

Liberals said the Conservative party's dissenting vote last night shows the government has no intention of honouring Kyoto, an international treaty that aims to halt global warming.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not show up in the Commons for the vote.

Two weeks ago, he missed the vote on a Liberal motion calling for the government to recommit to the accord.

But Liberal leader Stéphane Dion said responsibility for Kyoto, which Canada ratified in 2005, has now been shifted to Harper's shoulders following weeks of debate.

"Canada is back in the family of Kyoto as long as the House has some influence on the government," Dion said, leaving the Commons after the vote.

A few feet away, Baird was quick with his rebuttal: "If the world only worked in such a simple fashion."

"You've got to roll up your sleeves and make an effort. That's what this bill is saying," said deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.

The Tories said the bill does not allot them any money to accomplish the task set out in the legislation. Also, it provides no regulatory powers and suggests no penalties for non-compliance.

"If we could implement Kyoto without it costing a dime, I suspect we would have done it back in 1997," Baird told reporters ahead of the vote.

For the third time yesterday, House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken rejected a government challenge to the validity of the bill and allowed the vote to go ahead.

Several constitutional experts have told Canadian Press the Conservatives must respect the law. In interviews last week, university law professors Ned Franks, Patrick Monahan and Stewart Elgie all agreed that the government has no choice but to follow the law.

Adding his voice to the list yesterday was Errol Mendes of the University of Ottawa.

"If the bill passes... it will be a binding legal obligation on the part of the government," Mendes told CTV. "There could be very serious legal consequences."

Elgie, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said the Conservatives deserve credit for the success of Bill C-288 because of changes that they introduced to Parliamentary rules when they were in opposition. Those changes now allow private members' bills to proceed to a vote more quickly.

"This kind of ... bill probably wouldn't have been passed before this Parliament because the rules allowed the government to slow them down forever and kill them," Elgie said. "The irony is cruel."

In Toronto yesterday, before the vote, Baird and Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon said Ottawa will continue two programs aimed at encouraging consumers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles. The government will continue to produce fuel-consumption guides and window stickers for cars and light trucks already available in Canada, and maintain a program aimed at making Canadians more familiar with new technologies, such as hybrid and diesel engines, from other countries.

Both programs are to be slightly expanded, but the money available – up to $36 million over four years – will remain roughly the same as in the past.

"That's it?" asked a surprised John Bennett of the Climate Action Network, a coalition of environment groups, when he learned about it. "We thought it would be bigger than this. This is an inconsequential program."

The new measures – now named ecoENERGY for Personal Vehicles, and ecoTechnology – simply carry on programs that have operated for years and haven't worked, Bennett said.

With files from Peter Gorrie

America's top general contradicts White House, says no evidence Iranian government supplying Iraqi rebels

U.S. general: No evidence of Iran giving arms to Iraqis

February 13, 2007
The Houston Chronicle

By CHRIS BRUMMITT
Associated Press

JAKARTA, Indonesia — A top U.S. general said today there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces hunting down militant networks that produced roadside bombs had arrested Iranians and that some of the material used in the devices were made in Iran.

"That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this," Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. "What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers."

His remarks might raise questions on the credibility of the claims of high-level Iranian involvement, especially following the faulty U.S. intelligence that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Three senior military officials in Baghdad said Sunday that the highest levels of Iranian government were responsible for arming Shiite militants in Iraq with the bombs, blamed for the deaths of more than 170 U.S. troops

Asked Monday directly if the White House was confident that the weaponry is coming on the approval of the Iranian government, spokesman Tony Snow said, "Yes."

Iran on Monday denied any involvement.

"Such accusations cannot be relied upon or be presented as evidence. The United States has a long history in fabricating evidence. Such charges are unacceptable," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters in Tehran.

##################################################

From The Times Online

February 14, 2007

General clashes with Bush on Iraq

Tom Baldwin in Washington and Stephen Farrell in Baghdad

America’s top general appeared to contradict claims made by the White House and other US military commanders yesterday that Iran was arming Shia militants in Iraq. General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he did not know if Iranian-made material used to assemble roadside bombs in Iraq had been supplied on Tehran’s orders.

"That does not translate that the Iranian Government, for sure, is directly involved in doing this," he said on a visit to Jakarta, the Indonesian capital. "What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers."

On Sunday US military officials in Baghdad said that al-Quds Force, an Iranian para-military organisation, was sending arms into Iraq. Weapons that they said were "coming from the highest level of the Iranian Government" included bombs that shot molten metal jets through the armour of American tanks, which had been responsible for killing 170 US troops and wounding more than 600. Last night a new Iraqi security crackdown was announced, which included closing the border with Iran.

General Pace’s public scepticism over the Iranian link is surprising given his record of intense loyalty to the Bush Administration, which has led him to be nicknamed in some circles "Perfect Peter".

His comments followed remarks he made the previous day in Canberra, Australia, that: "I would not say that the Iranian Government clearly knows or is complicit." Yesterday Tony Snow, President Bush’s press secretary, insisted that the Administration and General Pace were "not on separate pages".

Mr Snow said that the apparent differences were because the general, who was airborne yesterday and could not be contacted, had been very precise in his use of language.

While the US did not have a "signed piece of paper" from the Iranian leadership authorising the weapons supply, al-Quds was "part of the Army and part of the Government", he said.

But there has been widespread scepticism about the Administration’s claims among congressional Democrats and military experts. British officials, who had their fingers burnt over the dossiers detailing Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war, have also been urging caution about building another intelligence-led case.

Stephen Hadley, the President’s National Security Adviser, said this month that a presentation outlining the Iranian link had been postponed. There have been reports that it was intelligence chiefs, not the White House, who demanded that the briefing should be scrubbed of exaggerated claims.

For the record: 60 Canadian MPs said the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was legitimate

“U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf are vital to the national security. These interests include access to oil and the security and stability of key friendly states in the region. The United States will defend its vital interests in the area, through the use of U.S. military force if necessary and appropriate, against any power with interests inimical to our own.”
– President George H.W. Bush, National Security Directive 45: U.S. Policy in Response to the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait, August 20, 1990

“The crisis between the United States and Iraq that led to the declaration of a national emergency on August 2, 1990, has not been resolved. The Government of Iraq continues to engage in activities inimical to stability in the Middle East and hostile to U.S. interests. Such Iraqi actions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to Iraq and to maintain in force the broad authorities necessary to apply economic pressure on the Government of Iraq.”
– President George W. Bush, Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, July 30, 2002

“We firmly believe that this intervention is legal under international law.”

“It is unfortunate, but it is now up to our allies, our historical allies, namely the Americans and the British, to act. We support their action.”
– Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance, House of Commons, March 20, 2003

On March 25, 2003, under the pretext of enforcing compliance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, 60 Canadian MPs voted in favour of a Canadian Alliance motion asking the House of Commons to “recognize the legitimacy of the decision” of the U.S.-led coalition to invade Iraq and overthrow its government. [See the vote below].

This is despite the fact that the invasion was illegal under international law.

The goal of U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was regime change. This has been U.S. policy since October 31, 1998, when then-President Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act. The United States was looking for regime change when Operation Desert Storm began a few years earlier. National Security Directive 54, signed by President George H.W. Bush on January 15, 1991, stated: “Should Iraq resort to using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, be found supporting terrorist acts against U.S. or coalition partners anywhere in the world, or destroy Kuwait’s oil fields, it shall become an explicit objective of the United States to replace the current leadership of Iraq.”

An October 3, 2002, Report for Congress by the Congressional Research Service (Iraq: U.S. Efforts to Change the Regime; RL31339) confirmed America’s long standing goal of regime change in Iraq:

“The United States has been attempting to change Iraq’s regime since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, although achieving this goal was not declared policy until 1998. In November 1998, amid a crisis with Iraq over U.N. weapons of mass destruction (WMD) inspections, the Clinton Administration stated that the United States would seek to go beyond containment to promoting a change of regime. A regime change policy was endorsed by the Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338, October 31, 1998). Bush Administration officials have emphasized regime change as the cornerstone of U.S. policy toward Iraq. This paper discusses past and current U.S. efforts to oust Saddam Hussein and the current debate over the implementation of that policy.”

Regime change, however, cannot be the basis for military action.

An October 2, 2002, statement by the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy provides a clear and concise argument why the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Founded in 1981, the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) is a national nonprofit educational association, based in New York City, that uses national and international law to promote peace and disarmament. LCNP has been a vital link between policy makers, legal scholars and activists.

The following excerpt is from the LCNP four-page statement:

“The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and as such forms part of the “supreme law of the land” under the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The UN Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding states’ conflicting obligations under any other international agreement. (Art. 103, UN Charter)”

“Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exist. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful.”

“The application of the basic law regarding self-defense to the present U.S. confrontation with Iraq is straightforward. Iraq has not attacked any state, nor is there any showing whatever that an attack by Iraq is imminent. Therefore self-defense does not justify the use of force against Iraq by the United States or any state.”

“There is no basis in international law for dramatically expanding the concept of selfdefense, as advocated in the Bush administration's September 2002 "National Security Strategy," to authorize "preemptive" - really preventive - strikes against states based on potential threats arising from possession or development of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and links to terrorism. Such an expansion would destabilize the present system of UN Charter restraints on use of force. Further, there is no claim or publicly disclosed evidence that Iraq is supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.”

“The Bush administration's reliance on the need for “regime change” in Iraq as a basis for use of force is barred by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.””

“Any claim that “material breach” of cease fire obligations by Iraq justifies use of force by the United States is unavailing. The Gulf War was a Security Council authorized action, not a state versus state conflict; accordingly, it is for the Security Council to determine whether there has been a material breach and whether such breach requires renewed use of force.”

The Bush Doctrine, which promotes military preemption, military superiority and unilateral action, is laid out in The National Security Strategy of the United States America (Sept. 2002), one of the most disturbing documents prepared by the Bush Administration. It provided the framework for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. The doctrine, however, is outside international law.

On March 7, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Hans Blix, Executive Chairman, United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), appeared before the UN Security Council to report their latest findings of inspections in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

“After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq,” said Mr. ElBaradei.

Responding to allegations of weapons of mass destruction being moved around Iraq by truck Dr. Blix said, “No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.”

The Bush Administration’s pretext for going to war was slowly being stripped away.

In Britain, on that same day, Attorney-General Lord Peter Henry Goldsmith advised Prime Minister Tony Blair that, “…regime change cannot be the objective of military action.”

The secret memo, dated March 7, 2003, was leaked to the British press in April 2005. Goldsmith also noted:

“…the UK has consistently taken the view that, as the cease-fire conditions were set by the Security Council in resolution 687 [1991], it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred. The US have a rather different view: they maintain that the fact of whether Iraq is in breach is a matter of objective fact which may therefore be assessed by individual Member States [but] I am not aware of any other state which supports this view.”

“I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further [UN Security Council] resolution to authorize the use of force.”

“The argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider extremely carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity.”

The hard evidence never came. In time, every pretext for war that the Bush Administration had concocted collapsed.

Other documents, known as the “Downing Street Memo(s),” revealed that Prime Minister Blair had told President Bush in April 2002, when the two met in Crawford, Texas, that “the UK would support military action to bring about regime change.” The British also felt that it would be “necessary to create the conditions” in which it “could legally support military action.”

On September 16, 2004, in an interview with Owen Bennett-Jones for BBC World Service at UN headquarters in New York, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the U.S.-led invasion, from the UN’s point of view “was illegal.”

Based on Congressional appropriations the U.S. taxpayer cost of the Iraq War is approaching $370-billion, a figure that wildly exceeds the Bush administration’s $50-$60 billion pre-war estimate. Confirmed U.S. military deaths have now surpassed 3,100.

Since the illegal invasion, the Pentagon has been constructing “superbases” in Balad, al-Asad, Tallil and al-Qayyarah. Some of these facilities are so big they include neighbourhoods, bus routes, fast food outlets and car dealerships.

A massive U.S. embassy, the largest in the world, is nearing completion in Bagdhad. The 104-acre complex, surrounded by 15-foot blast walls, rivals The Vatican in size. It includes 619 apartment units, gym, swimming pool, barber and beauty shops, a food court and its own power generation and water-treatment plants. The builder, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, is using low-wage imported workers and has been accused of labour trafficking and worker abuse. The cost: $592-million.

Iran and Iraq have the second and third largest proved oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. The United States is the largest oil consuming nation in the world. There is little doubt that access to and control of oil in the Persian Gulf is at the forefront of U.S. policy.

On May 22, 2003, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order No. 13303, which decreed that “any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void,” with respect to the “Development Fund for Iraq, and all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.”

In other words, U.S. oil companies are essentially free to do whatever they want in Iraq and are immune from legal proceedings in the United States.

On January 7, 2007, The Independent on Sunday (IoS) reported on a new draft law “that would give Western oil companies a massive share” in Iraq’s oil reserves.

According to the IoS:

“…under a system known as “production-sharing agreements”, or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil.”

“PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil, but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries.”

“Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come.”

“…the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.”

On January 18, 2007, the Iraqi Oil Ministry said the law was nearly ready to be submitted to the Cabinet and that it might be ratified by parliament within a month.

The United States’ presence in Iraq will surely be a permanent one.

HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Journals
No. 76
Monday, March 24, 2003

Canadian Alliance MPs Stockwell Day and Rahim Jaffer

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) moved:

That this House:

(1) endorse the decision of the Allied international coalition of military forces to enforce Iraq’s compliance with its international obligations under successive resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, with a view to restoring international peace and security in the Middle East region;

(2) express its unequivocal support for the Canadian service men and women, and other personnel serving in an exchange program with the United States and for those service men and women performing escort duties for British and United States’ ships, our full confidence in them and the hope that all will return safely to their homes;

(3) extend to the innocent people of Iraq its support and sympathy during the military action to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and the reconstruction period that will follow; and

(4) urge the government to commit itself to help the Iraqi people, including through humanitarian assistance, to build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbours.


Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance):

Since my time is up, I would like to offer an amendment. I move: That the motion be amended in the first paragraph by replacing the words “endorse the decision” with the words “recognize the legitimacy of the decision” and by inserting after the word “security” the words “including justice”.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I find the amendment to be in order.

The Deputy Speaker: It being 6:15 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today, the vote stands deferred until Tuesday, March 25 at 3 p.m.

HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Journals
No. 77
Tuesday, March 25, 2003

The House resumed from March 24, 2003, consideration of the motion and the amendment.

The Speaker: It being 3.00 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla on the business of supply.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 63)

YEAS – 60 NAYS – 181

The following 60 Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative MPs voted in favour of the amendment:

Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia) Canadian Alliance

Rob Anders (Calgary West) Canadian Alliance

David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands) Canadian Alliance

Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain) Canadian Alliance

Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls) Progressive Conservative

Leon Benoit (Lakeland) Canadian Alliance

Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris) Progressive Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Canadian Alliance

Andy Burton (Skeena) Canadian Alliance

David Chatters (Athabasca) Canadian Alliance

Joe Clark (Calgary Centre) Progressive Conservative

John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond) Canadian Alliance

Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla) Canadian Alliance

John Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Canadian Alliance

Ken Epp (Elk Island) Canadian Alliance

Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert) Canadian Alliance

Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby) Canadian Alliance

Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke) Canadian Alliance

Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East) Canadian Alliance

Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan) Canadian Alliance

Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central) Canadian Alliance

Deborah Grey (Edmonton North) Canadian Alliance

Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast) Canadian Alliance

Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest) Canadian Alliance

Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley) Canadian Alliance

Loyola Hearn (St. John's West) Progressive Conservative

John Herron (Fundy—Royal) Progressive Conservative

Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Canadian Alliance

Grant Hill (Macleod) Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake) Canadian Alliance

Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys) Canadian Alliance

Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona) Canadian Alliance

Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin) Canadian Alliance

Gerald Keddy (South Shore) Progressive Conservative

Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Canadian Alliance

Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands) Canadian Alliance

James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni) Canadian Alliance

Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin) Canadian Alliance

Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley) Canadian Alliance

Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead) Canadian Alliance

James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam) Canadian Alliance

Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East) Canadian Alliance

Charlie Penson (Peace River) Canadian Alliance

James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest) Canadian Alliance

Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton) Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast) Canadian Alliance

Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster) Canadian Alliance

Werner Schmidt (Kelowna) Canadian Alliance

Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Canadian Alliance

Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat) Canadian Alliance

Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot) Canadian Alliance

Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre) Canadian Alliance

Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap) Canadian Alliance

Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley) Canadian Alliance

Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Progressive Conservative

Myron Thompson (Wild Rose) Canadian Alliance

Elsie Wayne (Saint John) Progressive Conservative

Ted White (North Vancouver) Canadian Alliance

Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford) Canadian Alliance

John Williams (St. Albert) Canadian Alliance

The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.

[English]

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 64)

YEAS – 60 NAYS – 183

The following 60 Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative MPs voted in favour of the motion:

Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia) Canadian Alliance

Rob Anders (Calgary West) Canadian Alliance

David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands) Canadian Alliance

Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain) Canadian Alliance

Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls) Progressive Conservative

Leon Benoit (Lakeland) Canadian Alliance

Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris) Progressive Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Canadian Alliance

Andy Burton (Skeena) Canadian Alliance

David Chatters (Athabasca) Canadian Alliance

Joe Clark (Calgary Centre) Progressive Conservative

John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond) Canadian Alliance

Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla) Canadian Alliance

John Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Canadian Alliance

Ken Epp (Elk Island) Canadian Alliance

Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert) Canadian Alliance

Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby) Canadian Alliance

Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke) Canadian Alliance

Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East) Canadian Alliance

Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan) Canadian Alliance

Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central) Canadian Alliance

Deborah Grey (Edmonton North) Canadian Alliance

Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast) Canadian Alliance

Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest) Canadian Alliance

Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley) Canadian Alliance

Loyola Hearn (St. John's West) Progressive Conservative

John Herron (Fundy—Royal) Progressive Conservative

Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Canadian Alliance

Grant Hill (Macleod) Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake) Canadian Alliance

Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys) Canadian Alliance

Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona) Canadian Alliance

Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin) Canadian Alliance

Gerald Keddy (South Shore) Progressive Conservative

Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Canadian Alliance

Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands) Canadian Alliance

James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni) Canadian Alliance

Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin) Canadian Alliance

Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley) Canadian Alliance

Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead) Canadian Alliance

James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam) Canadian Alliance

Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East) Canadian Alliance

Charlie Penson (Peace River) Canadian Alliance

James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest) Canadian Alliance

Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton) Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast) Canadian Alliance

Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster) Canadian Alliance

Werner Schmidt (Kelowna) Canadian Alliance

Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Canadian Alliance

Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat) Canadian Alliance

Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot) Canadian Alliance

Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre) Canadian Alliance

Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap) Canadian Alliance

Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley) Canadian Alliance

Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Progressive Conservative

Myron Thompson (Wild Rose) Canadian Alliance

Elsie Wayne (Saint John) Progressive Conservative

Ted White (North Vancouver) Canadian Alliance

Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford) Canadian Alliance

John Williams (St. Albert) Canadian Alliance

The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.

Canadian government reportedly forming pro-Israel lobby; Prime Minister Harper to attend official announcement?

The Jeruselam Post Online Edition

Canadian government forming pro-Israel lobby

---

Etgar Lefkovits, THE JERUSALEM POST

Feb. 4, 2007

---

The Canadian government is establishing an "Israel Allies Caucus" this week meant to mobilize support for the State of Israel and promote Judeo-Christian values amid a groundswell of Christian support for Israel around the world.

The launching of the Canadian parliamentary lobby, which is based on the formation of the Knesset's "Christian Allies Caucus" three years ago, comes less than six months after a similar lobby was established in the US Congress.

The establishment of the new pro-Israel lobby will be officially announced in Ottawa on Tuesday in the presence of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canadian and Israeli parliamentarians, including MK Benny Elon (National Union-National Religious Party) MK Orit Noked (Labor) and MK Ran Cohen (Meretz), as well as members of the Canadian-Israel Friendship League.

The event comes at a time of burgeoning relations between Israel and the largely supportive evangelical Christian community around the world.

"The launching of the Canadian Parliamentary Israel Allies Caucus is a sign of things to come," said Josh Reinstein, director of the Knesset's Christian Allies Caucus in an interview from Canada on Sunday.

"We hope that one day every parliament and government around the world will form a sister caucus to the Knesset's Christian Allies Caucus which will mobilize support for Israel around the world and promote Judeo-Christian values."

Over the next six months, similar parliamentary lobbies are expected to be established in the Philippines, South Korea, Malawi, South Africa and Finland.

The increasingly influential Israeli parliamentary lobby, which is currently made up of 12 MKs from seven parties across the political spectrum, has come to epitomize Israel's newfound interest in garnering the support of the Christian world in the 21st century, especially the largely pro-Israel evangelical Christian community around the world, at a time when radical Islam is on the rise.

Copyright 1995-2007 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/

#################################################

The Jeruselam Post Online Edition

Christian Allies Caucus vows that 'the best is yet to come'

---

Etgar Lefkovits, THE JERUSALEM POST

Jan. 8, 2007

---

The Knesset's Christian Allies Caucus is marking its third anniversary on Tuesday, as ties between Israel and the predominantly supportive Evangelical Christian community around the world continue to strengthen.

The increasingly-influential parliamentary lobby, which is currently made up of 12 Knesset members from seven parties across the political spectrum, has come to epitomize Israel's newfound interest in garnering the support of the Christian world in the 21st century, at a time when radical Islam is on the rise.

"A State of Israel which does not understand that its strongest friend in the world at a time of growing threats from Islamic extremism is the Christian world, and particularly the Evangelical Christian community, is a state which is not politically astute," said interim Caucus leader MK Benny Elon (National Union-National Religious Party), the hawkish rabbi who spearheaded the campaign to court Evangelical Christian support during his tenure as tourism minister.

Established in January 2004 amid an unprecedented wave of Palestinian suicide bombings, the parliamentary lobby immediately took off, as pro-Israel Christian pilgrims, particularly Evangelicals, stood out in the then-empty streets of Jerusalem, their moral support conspicuous among the city's hard-hit residents at a time when even many American Jews didn't come to Israel.

After decades of shying away from Christian supporters, the newly formed lobby burst onto the scene with a flurry of activity, which continued apace in the last year, even as the Caucus's highly-respected founder, MK Yuri Shtern (Yisrael Beiteinu), had to temporarily step down from his position due to his debilitating battle with cancer.

In the past year alone, the endlessly-active lobby spurred the launching of a sister caucus in the United States House of Representatives known as the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus, while half a dozen similar pro-Israel caucuses in governments around the world are now being planned, including one that is scheduled to be launched in Canada next month.

Ultimately, the group hopes to create an international network of parliamentary sister caucuses that coordinate activities in support of Israel in close communication with each other.

"The singular achievement of the Christian Allies Caucus is that in its three years, it has become a well-known institution operating within the Knesset, and many Christians of all walks of life have become aware of it and are relating to it," said Rev. Malcolm Hedding, the executive director of the staunchly pro-Israel International Christian Embassy, a Jerusalem-based Evangelical organization.

The lobby, which met with top Christian leaders in the United States, Europe, Singapore and South Africa over the past year, is involved in programs to increase Christian tourism to Israel, strengthen Israel's dialogue with the African American community and improve the status of women globally on the basis of Judeo-Christian values, events that aim to broaden its ties with Christians of all denominations, beyond its natural alliance with the supportive Evangelical world.

At the same time, the Caucus's work - and goal in courting the support of predominantly conservative Christians - has been given the cold shoulder by the predominantly liberal American Jewish leadership, whose outlooks on social matters such as abortion, the separation of church and state and school prayer are 180 degrees to the left of the Christian Right in America.

Indeed, despite its almost overnight success, most mainstream American Jewish organizations have shied away from the parliamentary lobby or ignored it altogether.

The conflicting views on the two sides of the Atlantic over Israel's warm relations with the Evangelical Christian world came into full play last month, when, in a unprecedented move, the New York office of the World Jewish Congress publicly disassociated itself with an annual event to honor Christian supporters of Israel that its Israel office had already cosponsored.

At the same time, the Caucus's main limitation to date has been that it has primarily dealt with the supportive Evangelical Christian Community and has failed to make major inroads with the Catholic Church or other mainstream Protestant communities, some of whom have pressed ahead with Divestment Campaigns from Israel to protest Israeli policies vis a vie the Palestinians.

Still, Caucus director Josh Reinstein, who has termed the lobby "the personification of the new relationship between Jews and Christians in the 21st century," is overtly optimistic about the future.

"The Caucus has toiled to accomplish a great deal in the last three years, but the best is yet to come," he concluded.

---

Copyright 1995-2007 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/

#################################################

The Jeruselam Post Online Edition

Congress forms Israel Allies Caucus

---

Etgar Lefkovits, THE JERUSALEM POST

Jul. 27, 2006

---

The United States Congress on Thursday announced the establishment of an Israel Allies Caucus, meant to mobilize Christian support for Israel around the world.

The American congressional lobby, which is modeled on the Knesset's Christian Allies Caucus created two and half years ago, will debut with a membership of four Congressmen - two Republicans, Dave Weldon of Florida and Trent Franks of Arizona, and two Democrats, Eliot Engel of New York and Gene Green of Texas.

The new caucus plans to advocate Israel's right to live in peace within safe and secure borders, on the basis of shared Judeo-Christian values.

The establishment of the caucus was moved up as a sign of solidarity as Israel confronts terrorist threats from Hizbullah and Hamas.

"During the current crisis, Israel and the world need to know that the US Congress stands firm in its commitment to Israel's protection and right to defend itself against terrorism and state-sponsored terrorists," Weldon told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

He said the formation of the caucus reflected an unwavering Congressional commitment to the state of Israel, and would serve as another means to communicate with an important ally.

"Israel's fight against terrorism is the US's fight against terrorism," Engel said in a telephone interview from Washington.

Engel, who is the only Jewish member of the caucus, said it was important to garner support for Israel on a bipartisan basis among its many Christian friends in the US.

Weldon and Engel will co-chair the lobby.

A separate pro-Israel caucus has existed in the House of Representatives for decades.

The founding of the new caucus, which will serve as a forum for outreach and communication among pro-Israel Christians, comes at a time of burgeoning ties between Israel and the predominantly pro-Israel Evangelical Christian community around the world.

"I think that our basic appeal of reuniting people and especially politicians around Israel, not on a temporary cost-benefit approach, built on the most fundamental values of our civilization emanating from the Bible has proven itself," said Knesset Christian Allies Caucus founder MK Yuri Stern (Israel Beiteinu). He noted that similar parliamentary caucuses were being planned in the Philippines and in South Korea.

"This is not about religious observance or fundamentalism, it is about better understanding our identity and the things we are ready to fight for," he said.

"The civilized world's war with the Islamic terror regimes is at its root, a war of values, and this congressional sister Caucus to the Knesset's Christian Allies Caucus signals a recognition that the Judeo-Christian values America and Israel share lie at the heart of their alliance and the special relationship between them," said Knesset Christian Allies Caucus director Josh Reinstein.

---

---

Copyright 1995-2007 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/

#################################################

Etgar Lefkovits-Dallal is a Jerusalem Correspondent for the Jerusalem Post. He has extensive knowledge of the region. Mr. Lefkovitz is responsible for daily coverage of all major news in the city; including police, city hall and terror attacks. He has been involved in many diplomatic discussions regarding Jerusalem’s future. He was invited by Polish government to Warsaw to write a series on Israel-Polish relations. He was responsible for on-site coverage of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000. He was a research assistant to former Jerusalem Bureau Chief Serge Schmemenn, and Deborah Sontag, where he was responsible for assisting with research, in-person and phone interviews, monitoring breaking news stories, keeping the bureau chiefs informed of developments and trends in the country, and wrote occasional articles that appeared in the New York Times.

Mr. Lefkovitz was the Israel reporter for a major San Antonio, Texas radio station, for a magazine of the Israel Defense Forces, where he was responsible for covering foreign affairs interviewed visiting chiefs of staff and senior officers of foreign armies, as well as military attaches stationed in Israel. Mr. Lefkovitz has a B.A. from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is fluent in English as his mother tongue, Hebrew, and French.

Availability: Etgar lives in Israel and frequently comes to the US for speaking engagements.
Contact JNF Speakers Bureau for availability.