plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
20378 stories
·
20 followers

Syria: catastrophe

1 Share

Posted on substack 20 January 2026

A catastrophe is unfolding, hour by hour, in North East Syria.

The transitional government of Al-Sharaa agreed a ceasefire with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) of North East Syria (called ‘the Kurds’ by most in the press) on Sunday. But government forces and associated armed groups (al-Sharaa’s militia, the HTS, and the Syrian National Army, a violent Turkish proxy) continued and widened their attacks.

Under American pressure, the SDF under the ceasefire ceded control of two provinces east of the Euphrates. But government and extremist attacks continued in the towns of Raqqa and Deir ez Zor. The former is well known as the headquarters of ISIS during the years when ISIS controlled large swathes of Syria - until they were defeated by the SDF, at great cost in life, with ‘allied’ air support, a campaign that has continued until now. Indeed there has been a resurgence in ISIS attacks in recent months.

Government forces and extremist groups are now pushing far into the North East, laying siege to Kobani in the north, and attacking the major centres of Hasakeh and Raqqa. It is clear that Turkey, seeing the world’s attention distracted by the lunatic in the White House, is seizing the opportunity to occupy the whole region and destroy the SDF, whom they allege is one and the same as the PKK, once and for all. Multiple atrocities have been committed along the way, with horrible videos of torture, summary execution and mutilation of corpses of SDF fighters, videos filmed and gleefully circulated by the jihadists among al Sharaa’s forces, often to the accompaniment of songs celebrating the killing of non-believers. The atrocities, of course, are reminiscent of ISIS. Indeed, there are photographs that appear to show known ISIS members among the armed groups.

Hundreds of ISIS prisoners were freed from a prison south of Hasakeh yesterday. As I write (1pm UK on 19 January), al Hol, the huge camp in the far north east holding tens of thousands of ISIS fighters and their families, is under attack but the situation is unclear: it appears that some prisoners have already escaped. Extremists on the government side are calling for the ‘liberation’ of all ISIS detainees.

Refugees are flooding eastwards. Rhetoric from the government is playing up the ethnic character of the assault on ‘the Kurds’, inciting ethnic hatred and violence. There are reports that the government has named the campaign, ‘Anfal’, which was the name of Saddam Hussein’s genocidal attack in northern Iraq in 1988, which killed 100,000 Kurds. I hope this is not true.

I have been in touch with various diplomats etc who tell me that they are ‘working on’ Damascus to stop the violence. But whatever pressure they are exerting appears to be having no effect. The mistake was that the US envoy (and, notably, also ambassador to Turkey), Thomas Barrack indicated to Damascus that the US accepted that ‘the Kurds’ should be removed west of the Euphrates, effectively greenlighting the government’s attacks in Aleppo and beyond. Turkey and Damascus have also taken this as tacit American acquiescence in a more far reaching invasion of the North East and destruction of the SDF, our ally in the war against ISIS, who have sacrificed forty thousand lives, men and women, in that campaign. The Kurds understandably see this as an epic betrayal. Trump spoke to al-Sharaa yesterday but the attacks have continued today. American troops seem to be involved in securing some of the ISIS prisons, but this too is currently very unclear.

Rojava is now under widescale attack and is at risk of total occupation by Damascus’s forces along with associated extremist groups. Turkish drones are active in the attacks and there was a report this morning of Turkish attack aircraft over Syria. If SDF resistance digs in, which it will, we can expect greater Turkish involvement. Both Damascus and Ankara are no doubt confident that whatever the diplomatic bleatings now, they will suffer no long term consequences for this assault. But the dream of a ‘united’ Syria is dying as we watch. We are seeing domination by force, not unity by consensus, which is what the people of the North East, and the SDF’s leadership, very much want.

The true character of the al-Sharaa regime which, remember, has never been elected, is being revealed. The foolish western embrace of the ex-terrorist ‘reformer’ is exposed for its naivete.

Remember that there is a lot of unverified information going around. But the information I’m sharing about the extent of the attacks is coming from the SDF itself. There is a lot of stuff on ‘X’ but of course much of it is sometimes wild fabrication (one American supposedly independent ‘analyst’ for instance is happily broadcasting anti-Kurd propaganda). I will update as and when. My messaging apps are constantly pinging as I write.

You can subscribe to my Substack here

Subscribe

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates on new posts, videos, courses etc..  Don't worry, your information will not be shared.

We hate SPAM. We will never sell your information, for any reason.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 hour ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Why neither Asia nor the US has produced a rival to ASML

1 Share
JavaScript is disabled in your browser.

Please enable JavaScript to proceed.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
6 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Traditionally strong — what went wrong?

1 Share

‘Germany’s economy is in free fall’, warns Peter Leibinger, president of the Federation of German Industries (BDI). The German automotive sector, at the heart of its business model, is undergoing a disruptive process. Almost 50 000 jobs were lost in the space of a year (third quarter of 2025 compared with one year ago), with the number of automobile workers declining to a level not seen since 2011. The rest of the manufacturing sector is faring little better, with the total number of jobs falling by 120 000. A sign of the general weakness of traditional German businesses is that German GDP is no higher than it was six years ago.

With China now flooding European markets with cheap, attractive electric vehicles, these negative trends are likely to continue. Germany’s traditional manufacturing base is further challenged by its almost complete absence of a digital sector — internet platforms, semiconductor producers and software companies. In this area, the United States is by far the dominant economy. Consequently, Germany is the European country most seriously affected by the ‘middle-technology trap’ identified by economists as a threat to Europe in general.

Germany’s unique position is illustrated by the average age of its top 20 firms (measured by market capitalisation): 129 years. While it is not negative that companies have successfully transformed over the decades, the problem is that new, globally relevant companies have not been developed in either the electronic and digital sphere or the field of renewable energies — batteries, electric vehicles or solar panels, for example. This raises the question of why other countries, particularly the United States and China, have performed much better in establishing major companies outside the traditional manufacturing sector.

China planned its dominance; America hid its hand

For China, the answer is simple. In 2015, the country developed the ‘Made in China 2025’ master plan, identifying core industries in which it intended to gain global leadership: information technology, computerised machines, robots, energy-saving vehicles, medical devices and high-tech equipment for aerospace, maritime and rail transport. Ten years later, it is clear that this strategy has been successful. China dominates the global market, especially in the supply chain of renewable energies. The threat that this strategy posed to Germany’s manufacturing sector was identified as early as 2016 in a study by the Mercator Institute for Chinese Studies. In an article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung on 12 August 2017, I warned of the challenges posed by China’s industrial policy for Germany. In response, my fellow members of the Council of Economic Experts criticised me, questioning my economic expertise.

But what about the United States? Here, the dominant narrative seems to support the view of many German economists that innovation cannot and should not be managed by the government, which is supposedly unable to ‘pick winners’. This narrative is supported by famous stories about the origins of big tech companies, which often depict their founders as starting their businesses in a garage: Bill Gates in 1975 (Microsoft); Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak in 1976 (Apple); Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1998 (Google).

This seems to confirm the Hayekian view of competition as a discovery process, the idea that a market system has an innate capacity for innovation as long as it is not disturbed by government regulations and burdensome taxes. The ‘garage’ narrative is presented in the 2018/19 Annual Report (paragraph 158) of the German Council of Economic Experts:

‘In order to be sustainably successful, however, an innovation location should refrain from a guiding industrial policy, which sees it as a state task to identify future markets and technologies as strategically important (…). It is unlikely that policymakers have sufficient knowledge and understanding of future technological developments or changes in demand to make this a meaningful long-term strategy. If the government is concerned about sustainable progress, it should rather rely on the decentralised knowledge and the individual actions of various actors of the national economy.’

Unfortunately, the misconception of the US digital agenda continues to shape economic thinking in Germany to this day.

However, this raises the question of why Germany has been unable to develop similar garage success stories. There has certainly been no shortage of garages or very smart young people. To understand the digital dominance of the United States, one must look beyond the standard narrative. The explanation lies in the comprehensive yet ‘hidden’ industrial policy pursued by the US government in the 1950s and 1960s. In the words of Wade (2014):

‘The dominant approach to selective industrial policy took the form of government support for “basic” research in a plethora of military laboratories. Hence the quip: “America has had three types of industrial policy: first, World War II; second, the Korean War; and third, the Vietnam War.” The focus on “basic” and “military” research avoided the ideological issues surrounding industrial policy because even market fundamentalists accepted that the government should fund the development of new weapons and intelligence systems.’

Data on US R&D spending illustrates the significant contribution of military R&D spending in the 1950s and 1960s. Expenditure by the Department of Defense and NASA accounted for over 50 per cent of total R&D spending in the United States. This spending’s importance becomes evident when considering that, in 1960, US defence spending accounted for 36 per cent of global R&D expenditure.

Thus, contrary to the mainstream narrative, it was the US government that had a clear strategic vision of boosting electronic computers, computer software and semiconductor components, giving birth to the internet and, more recently, digital platforms. US industrial policy remains active to this day, as evidenced by In-Q-Tel (or IQT), the CIA’s investment arm, which describes its role as follows:

‘For more than a quarter of a century, IQT has delivered significant mission impact by building a unique – and uniquely powerful – not-for-profit global investment platform that accelerates the introduction of groundbreaking technologies to enhance the national security and prosperity of America and its allies.’

Therefore, as long as most German politicians and economists continue to adhere to a flawed concept of growth and innovation, the outlook for the German economy will remain bleak.

Unfortunately, the misconception of the US digital agenda continues to shape economic thinking in Germany to this day. Katherina Reiche, the Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy, in particular, has a deep belief in the virtues of a free market economy. At a recent symposium, she argued that the government should focus on its core competencies, such as external security, education, and infrastructure. She believes that subsidies and funding programmes should be rigorously scrutinised. In her view, competition is the most important driver of innovation (“prosperity through competition”), although she also acknowledged that US tech giants are a key source of economic dynamism in America.

The lack of a comprehensive strategy for transforming the German economy is particularly damaging as the reform of the so-called debt brake in March 2025 created an opportunity to actively promote fundamental innovations. However, due to this conceptual void, much of the additional financial space will be used to lower the energy costs of existing firms (around €30 billion in the 2026 budget), while only €4.5 billion will be available for the so-called HighTech Agenda Deutschland.

Therefore, as long as most German politicians and economists continue to adhere to a flawed concept of growth and innovation, the outlook for the German economy will remain bleak. Caught between a rock (China) and a hard place (the US), its manufacturing sector will continue to shrink without a corresponding rise in new competitive technologies.

Is the situation really that hopeless? There is still a glimmer of hope. The reform of the debt brake makes it possible for all defence expenditures exceeding one per cent of GDP to be financed with debt. There is no limit to this. This creates an opportunity to use the defence sector to promote new technologies that can be used for purposes beyond the military. In this regard, Germany could adopt the US model of ‘hidden’ industrial policy to help it escape the middle-technology trap.

This is a joint publication by Social Europe and IPS Journal.



Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Why Iran’s crisis is Russia’s problem

1 Share

Iran’s ongoing political unrest is no longer just a domestic crisis. It is becoming a strategic problem for Moscow, directly affecting Russia’s energy position, its ability to manage sanctions pressure and, ultimately, its capacity to finance a prolonged war in Ukraine.

For Russia, Iran has long functioned as a sanctioned but stable partner, politically isolated, strategically aligned and economically constrained in ways that limited Tehran’s ability to pivot towards the West. That stability is now in question. Prolonged unrest threatens to turn a useful partner into a source of uncertainty at a moment when the Kremlin can least afford it.

A period of prolonged uncertainty

The protests, which began in late December, have continued despite severe repression. Human rights organisations and independent monitoring groups estimate that more than 5 000 people have been killed and tens of thousands detained. Internet access, satellite connections and even basic telephone services were repeatedly shut down for days at a time. Inside Iran, there is widespread belief that Russian technical and security assistance helped enable these nationwide communication blackouts, drawing on Moscow’s own experience with digital control, repression and surveillance.

Whether every element of this assistance can be independently verified matters less than its political effect. Protesters who oppose the Islamic Republic’s political system increasingly view Russia as an enabler of repression and a long-standing partner of the regime. This links Moscow directly to a deeply unpopular political order and raises the stakes of any future change in Tehran for Russian interests.

Since the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has relied on Iran as part of its sanctions-era survival strategy.

What began as economically driven unrest, rooted in inflation, currency collapse and declining living standards, has rapidly taken on a political character.  Over the past decade, repeated waves of protest have transformed Iranian society into a movement-oriented one in which protest is no longer exceptional but increasingly expected. Today, most political groups and protest movements believe that meaningful change requires structural transformation, either through fundamental reform or a reconfiguration of power that makes genuine economic and political reform possible.

External pressure has sharpened this dynamic. Donald Trump’s return to the White House brought renewed sanctions and ended any remaining hope of near-term diplomatic relief. At the same time, Iran’s regional position weakened. The twelve-day war with Israel, including the killing of senior commanders, marked a turning point. Combined with the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s rule in Syria and the arrest of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, these developments pushed Iran’s political system into a period of heightened tension and structural fragility.

The result is not imminent collapse, but prolonged uncertainty. If the US refrains from direct military action and no major external shock intervenes, Iran is likely to enter a period of internal adjustment and elite tension. That uncertainty is precisely what alarms Moscow.

Loss of leverage

Since the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has relied on Iran as part of its sanctions-era survival strategy. The relationship has been pragmatic rather than ideological, built on military cooperation, diplomatic alignment and coordination under Western pressure. Iran mattered to Moscow precisely because it was predictable — a partner with few alternatives and a willingness to cooperate politically, economically and on security. That leverage will erode once Iran is no longer cut off from the world.

From the Kremlin’s perspective, almost every plausible future political trajectory in Iran is problematic. A sudden leadership change or systemic transformation would likely push Tehran, over time, toward repairing relations with Europe and re-entering global markets. Even a controlled survival of the current system would probably empower more pragmatic actors focused on economic stabilisation rather than geopolitical confrontation. In both scenarios, Russia loses leverage.

The energy implications are central. Iran holds some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves, but sanctions and isolation have kept much of that potential offline. This has indirectly benefited Russia by limiting competition in already tight global markets, particularly since the war in Ukraine has reshaped Europe’s energy flows.

Russia’s war financing depends heavily on energy revenues.

If a future Iranian leadership opens the door, even gradually, to Western and European energy companies, regional supply dynamics would shift. Increased Iranian exports would push prices down and reduce Russia’s ability to use energy scarcity as leverage over Europe. For Moscow, this is not just about market share. It is about control.

Russia’s war financing depends heavily on energy revenues. Any development that increases supply, reduces prices or diversifies Europe’s long-term energy options directly undermines the Kremlin’s fiscal base. A reintegrated Iran would do all three.

Even short of full reintegration, a less isolated Iran would complicate Russia’s informal sanctions-evasion networks and reduce the value of Tehran as a strategic economic partner.

There is another structural problem for Moscow. Russia’s closest relationships in Iran are not with civil society or economic technocrats, but with security institutions and hardline political networks, many linked to the Revolutionary Guard or the Supreme Leader’s office. These are precisely the actors most directly challenged by the current unrest. If their influence weakens through political reform, elite reshuffling or generational change, Russia’s access and leverage will weaken with them. And Moscow has few meaningful ties to the social or political forces likely to shape Iran’s future.

This is why reports and rumours of Russian assistance in surveillance, internet shutdowns and crowd control matter strategically. They may help preserve short-term stability, but they deepen long-term hostility. Repression may buy time, but it does not buy loyalty.

Unlike the situation in Venezuela in early 2026, where the United States’ detention of President Nicolás Maduro highlighted the limits of Russian leverage, Moscow has taken care not to abandon Tehran amid the ongoing crisis. On 15 January 2026, during an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting convened at the request of the United States to discuss Iran’s deadly protests and ‘possible military strikes’, the Russian delegation firmly rejected what it described as foreign interference in Iran’s internal affairs and criticised the US for using the situation for political ends.

If Iran’s political trajectory shifts in the coming months or years, the outcome is unlikely to favour Moscow.

For Europe, the implications are significant. Iran’s unrest intersects with debates over sanctions, energy security and the sustainability of Russia’s war economy. From a European perspective, political change in Iran would ease pressure on energy markets and further constrain Russia’s war economy. This helps explain why Moscow has intensified its intelligence, security and informational support for the Islamic Republic in recent weeks, from assistance in repression and surveillance to full backing in propaganda and information warfare, including in international forums.

Iran’s protests are often framed as a test of the Islamic Republic’s political system. They are also a test of Russia’s assumptions about how much control sanctioned partnerships can really provide. They directly affect Russia’s energy calculations, its capacity to sustain war financing, and its ability to withstand Western pressure. Iran’s unrest, therefore, reveals a vulnerability in Moscow’s broader strategic posture that Russia is unlikely to contain or manage easily.

If Iran’s political trajectory shifts in the coming months or years, the outcome is unlikely to favour Moscow. Such a shift would weaken Russia’s position not only in the Middle East but also in the context of the war in Ukraine, by undermining one of its few remaining strategic partnerships formed under sanctions and isolation. This is also why Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has publicly urged the international community to support Iranian protesters and political change in Iran.

For Russia, what happens in Iran is no longer a peripheral concern. It is directly tied to the future balance of power in Europe and the trajectory of the war in Ukraine.



Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Why George Abbott’s Book on Indigenous Rights Matters | The Tyee

1 Share

Former cabinet minister and current treaty commissioner George Abbott’s new book provides a timely reminder that British Columbia’s current struggles around Indigenous rights and title are the direct result of past government decisions over many years.

Available from UBC Press imprint Purich Books, Unceded: Understanding British Columbia’s Colonial Past and Why It Matters Now traces how successive governments treated the “land question” going back to the formation of the colonies and tracks repeated failures to try to settle it.

The book comes as the province grapples with major court decisions around Aboriginal title and MLAs argue over whether the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act should be repealed or just revised, in either case over the objections of Indigenous leaders.

“We’re now having to deal in 2026 with issues that might have been remedied effectively 170 years ago, but were not,” Abbott told The Tyee in an interview. “We’re paying for the failures of the ancestors, and the courts are saying very clearly you have to do that. It’s not an option to put it off another 170 years.”

The Supreme Court of British Columbia’s decision last summer in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada, and the political response to it, is a prime example.

In the lengthy ruling, Justice Barbara M. Young found the descendants of the Quwʼutsun Nation have Aboriginal title to about 780 acres of Tl’uqtinus, their summer fishing village on the south arm of the Fraser River, and have an Aboriginal right to fish for food in the area.

The Crown had unjustifiably infringed on the Quwʼutsun Nation’s Aboriginal title, she found, and declared the federal government and the City of Richmond’s titles to some of the lands defective and invalid.

The ruling left other private property intact. But it said “B.C. has a duty to negotiate with the Cowichan to reconcile their Aboriginal title with the private fee simple interests in a manner that accords with the honour of the Crown.”

Abbott called the decision important and said it will be interesting to see what happens as it goes through two levels of appeal.

“I think the justice got most of the decision right,” he said. “I think she did a pretty good job on the history.... She established very clearly that Cowichan Tribes, or today Cowichan Nations, made good use of their opportunity to fish on the Fraser River, as did many other nations.”

However, going the further step of calling into question the titles to fee simple private land in the area — something the Quwʼutsun plaintiffs were not seeking — may have the opposite effect from what the justice imagined, Abbott said.

“Rather than encouraging the parties to negotiate, it encouraged them to appeal, for different reasons,” he said.

“From what I know of government it’s not something that would move the matters along” and would instead make it more complicated, he said. “I don’t think Justice Young’s decision left government in a strong negotiating position, and I suspect that’s part of the calculus moving forward.... It’s a tough decision to work from politically.”

While Abbott stresses that he is happily no longer a politician, he did sit many years at the cabinet table. He was the MLA for Shuswap for 17 years under BC Liberal premiers Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark with assignments that included minister of Aboriginal relations and reconciliation and minister of health.

After leaving office he earned a PhD in political science from the University of Victoria, turning his thesis into the book Big Promises, Small Government: Doing Less with Less in the BC Liberal New Era.

Abbott’s new book is also rooted in his experience in government. “I met more than a few colonial ghosts,” he wrote, “while serving as British Columbia’s minister of Aboriginal services from 2001 to 2004 and minister of Aboriginal relations and reconciliation from 2009 to 2010.”

A 2010 visit to Tsay Keh Dene village left a particularly strong impression. The people he met had much of their traditional territories flooded in 1968 with the filling of the Williston reservoir.

“How could such injustices have occurred only a few decades earlier?” asked Abbott. “The Tsay Keh Dene had been uprooted by my predecessors in government, rendered ‘refugees on their own lands,’ then capriciously neglected and disregarded in the years that followed.”

Nor were they alone in the “callous treatment they suffered at the hands of the government,” he wrote.

As Abbott thoroughly documents, the pattern was in place almost from the founding of the colonies that became British Columbia. While Gov. James Douglas took a relatively enlightened approach, leaving it up to First Nations to determine what land they needed, later governments resisted and undermined efforts to establish fair reserves.

One of the more important elements in the book, Abbott said, is the examination of British Columbia’s policy from Douglas’s retirement until the 1920s to create reserves only as white settlement proceeded. It was the opposite approach from what Canada had taken east of the Rocky Mountains, where treaties were negotiated ahead of white settlement.

The reserves in B.C. were also much smaller than those created in other parts of the country, especially on the coast, he said, setting the stage for decades of conflict.

“It did not have to be this way,” wrote Abbott. “A more constructive path was followed during the early colonial years under Governor James Douglas, but his approach crashed up against settler resistance, ushering in the brutal racism of Joseph Trutch and William Smithe and innumerable injustices in the century of darkness that followed.”

After replacing Douglas, Trutch became B.C.’s first lieutenant-governor. Smithe was premier from 1883 to 1887.

“Trutch dismissed the notion of Aboriginal title out of hand, as most of his successors would for the next 125 years,” wrote Abbott, tracing to him the theme that Indigenous people were a barrier to economic development instead of partners in it.

“Trutch’s views were rooted at the far end of settler racism,” Abbott wrote in another section. “He used the power of his political offices — along with lies and intimidation, when needed — to undermine Douglas’s vision for Indigenous relations.”

Abbott said he learned much in working on the chapters about the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia, known as the McKenna-McBride commission, conducted between 1913 and 1916.

He was astonished at the number of First Nations who returned from their seasonal rounds to a site they’d long occupied only to find it had been taken over by the province, he said. “Those kinds of situations have occurred around the province and to me that’s why we need as quickly as we can to get treaties with First Nations that recognize past injustices, or I’m also very supportive of foundation agreements.”

Foundation agreements, like the one signed with the Lake Babine Nation in 2020, aren’t a full treaty settlement but include many of the same measures, he said.

Abbott doesn’t shy from acknowledging how his views, or at least his willingness to champion them, have changed over the years.

In writing about the NDP’s approach in opposition under Carole James’ leadership, he said: “To her credit, James recognized an uncomfortable truth that [former premier Gordon] Campbell and the BC Liberals (including me) had chosen to ignore in the context of the Nisga’a Treaty debates in the latter 1990s: the benefits of advancing reconciliation and remediating past injustices through treaty making can be all too easily lost in the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate and tactical partisan positioning.”

Similarly, he expresses relief that Campbell’s 2009 election campaign kept reconciliation in the background. “BC Liberal MLAs (like me) who believed that economic management was a far safer electoral battleground than a Recognition and Reconciliation Act had good reason to be pleased with Campbell’s election campaign and its outcome.”

There is also blame for others who stalled progress, in particular Campbell’s successor Christy Clark. “Premier Clark did not share her predecessor’s fascination with public policy as an instrument of reform,” wrote Abbott. “There would be no big and bold Indigenous relations initiatives during her tenure.... Indigenous relations was of interest only when it facilitated economic development.”

image atom
Cowichan Decision and Beyond: Letting Go of Zero-Sum Thinking
read more

He also addresses the Clark government’s strange last-minute revoking of his appointment as the BC Treaty Commission’s chief commissioner in 2015, six months after then-Aboriginal affairs minister John Rustad recruited him, though to this day he’s unsure what drove the decision.

His current appointment to the commission was made last year by the NDP government.

The book includes a useful chronology that covers from 1846 to 2024, as well as extensive endnotes, an index and recommendations for further reading, including works by Indigenous and non-Indigenous writers.

In general, Abbott said, he’s optimistic the province is moving in the right direction on reconciliation. While there is rhetoric in the legislature from some members, particularly OneBC leader and Vancouver-Quilchena MLA Dallas Brodie, that hasn’t been seen in decades, he said; most support moving ahead.

“The great majority of members of the assembly, whether they are Conservative or New Democrat, want the treaty process to be effective and see a reconciliation of the injustices of the past,” he said. “I think there is a broad consensus in the assembly that we should remedy injustice and move along the path to reconciliation as quickly as we can.”

In the book Abbott said he hopes to bring the lessons he learned while writing it to his work with the BC Treaty Commission.

“There are dozens of situations where injustices have been imposed as a consequence of historical policies by the government of British Columbia,” Abbott told The Tyee, adding that identifying and remedying them are a big part of reconciliation.

image atom
George Abbott Looks Back at the BC Liberals New Era, and Doesn’t Like What He Sees
read more

Abbott’s book includes a foreword by Steven Point, former Grand Chief of the Stó:lō Tribal Council, provincial court judge and the province’s first Indigenous lieutenant-governor.

“The simple truth is that when Europeans arrived in the so-called New World, they did not find an empty land but rather a land with millions of Indigenous people who already owned and occupied their homelands,” he wrote.

“Aboriginal title to the land in British Columbia is a legal reality and must be dealt with in our time, if we can,” he said, adding that, despite Canada being one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, most Indigenous people live in developing-world conditions on federal reserves.

“We have to conclude respectful treaties that will allow First Nations real benefits from their own homelands,” Point wrote. “A share in the resources being extracted would allow First Nations to finance their own healing from our oppressive colonial past.”

At a time when there seems to be growing confusion about the way forward and weakening commitment to reconciliation, Unceded grounds the current debates in B.C.’s colonial history and argues for a better future.  [Tyee]

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Roundup: Once again, food prices are up because of climate change

1 Share

Yesterday was inflation data day, and it did tick upward, but for the reason that there was a base-year effect, meaning that because a year ago, the government instituted their stupid “GST holiday” as a gimmick to boost them in the polls, and that shakes out in the inflation data a year later because prices are that much higher a year later (and inflation is a year-over-year measure). But where this bites particularly hard is with food from restaurants, as that was one of the beneficiaries from the “holiday,” and that pushes up the food price index further, which is already high because of things like coffee and beef.

Enter Pierre Poilievre, who sees those higher numbers and starts to immediately caterwaul about them, without actually reading the rest of the data about why things like coffee and beef are climbing in price, and spoiler, it has a lot to do with climate change. “Adverse weather conditions” is generally things like droughts or extreme weather, most of which is climate-change related. Cattle inventories are low because the drought on the prairies meant that ranchers had to cull their herds because importing feed was expensive, and that means a lower supply and lower supply means higher prices (which is basic supply-and-demand). But Poilievre keeps trying to insist that this is about “hidden taxes” and that deficits are driving inflation, which is not the case. But will anyone on the government side correct him and his disinformation? Of course not.

It's too bad reading comprehension is so difficult for these jackasses.Food purchased from restaurants is up because of the base-year effect of last year's "GST holiday."Grocery pricers are up because the two main drivers were affected by drought.www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quo…

Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-01-19T15:14:03.719Z

From the 2025 annual CPI report, on food prices. "Adverse weather conditions" is mostly droughts, but also extreme weather driven by climate change.These price increases have fuck all to do with "taxes" or government deficits. www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quo…

Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-01-19T15:14:03.720Z

But will any member of the government actually point any of this out? Of course not. They will pat themselves on the back for the school food programme, or the Canada Child Benefit, but because they believe that "if you're explaining you're losing," they never explain, and the lies just fester.

Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-01-19T15:14:03.721Z

And here’s the kicker—Environment Canada is predicting that this will once again be among the four hottest years on record, and that is likely going to mean more droughts, possibly more extreme weather—because this does affect hurricane formation—and that’s again going to impact food-producing regions, which will raise prices even more. But Poilievre and the Conservatives refuse to believe this. They have openly scoffed in Question Period about this, and said stupid things like “paying a tax won’t change the weather,” as if that was what the point was. And then there’s Carney, gutting our environmental programmes left and right in the name of diversifying our economy, which will exacerbate things even further. So long as they all continue to play this ignorant little game, things will continue to get more expensive, and they will keep looking for more scapegoats rather than looking in the mirror.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched a combined drone and missile assault on Kyiv, cutting off power and water supplies in parts of the city. The night before, drone strikes cut power across five different regions. President Zelenskyy announced a new facet of their air defences system, working to transform the system with more interceptor drones.

Good reads:

  • Mark Carney is apparently still mulling the “Board of Peace’ invitation in spite of the Putin invitation and the $1 billion entry fee. (Seriously?!)
  • Carney is now in Davos, Switzerland, to suck up to oligarchs and billionaires at the World Economic Forum in the name of diversifying trade.
  • Canada has finally opened a high commission in Fiji, with Randeep Sarai in attendance, three years after promising to do so.
  • Thousands of civil servants have now received notices that their jobs may be cut.
  • The Federal Court has rejected the government’s attempt to block transparency on their renegotiations with the US around the Safe Third Country Agreement.
  • Pierre Poilievre and his loyalists are campaigning amongst the party membership base ahead of the leadership review vote at the end of the month.
  • The Conservative Party’s national council has already approved Damien Kurek to run again in Battle River—Crowfoot, meaning Poilievre needs to find a new seat.
  • Former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould says she’s undergoing treatment for breast cancer.
  • Doug Ford is still throwing a tantrum about the Chinese EV deal, and the fact that Carney didn’t warn him ahead of time (because Ford can totally be trusted).
  • Thomas Gunton makes the case that the market is showing we don’t need a new pipeline given excess capacity and global oversupply.
  • Susan Delacourt sounds caution for the “Board of Peace” nonsense/grift.
  • Anne Applebaum boggles at Trump’s increasingly unhinged behaviour regarding Greenland, and calls on Congressional Republicans to rein him in.

Odds and ends:

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I talk about the recent spate of "strategic partnerships" with authoritarian countries. #cdnpoli

Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-01-20T02:49:31.442Z

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories