“All too often, we focus on the UN-led peace-keeping missions that did not succeed. Missions in Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia… Consider for a moment the enormous impact that the UN peacekeeping mission had in East Timor. UN efforts there helped to protect a nascent and fragile independent state. With the help of the UN, the Timorese were able to surmount incredible odds – years of violence and repression – and create a largely stable and successful state. There are lessons to be learned from the UN’s failures – but also from its successes. It’s time to apply these lessons to Afghanistan,” Layton said at the University of Ottawa on January 30.

The video and text of this speech is on the NDP website. Following the theme of my last two posts, I am writing about the New Democratic party’s multimedia on Afghanistan.

Watching politicians argue about how to bring about peace in Afghanistan, each taking the other down and none of them offering a convincing argument that peace is possible is heartbreaking. Reading about a Nobel laureate with a gunshot wound and then hearing how his country is model of hope for Afghanistan is worse.

Internet video makes that possible. It has only been about an hour since the attack made the news, and maybe soon somebody of the NDP will take down the speech, or maybe not. Ten days ago East Timor must have been peaceful enough to be held up as a good example, a success story of foreign involvement in a country recovering from successive occupations, but it the peace must have been fragile.

Layton spoke about turning around the mission in Afghanistan from heading into a cul-de-sac of increasing violence and poverty onto a path of peace (his metaphors, not mine).

If we follow his plan for a safe and secure withdrawl and follow a diplomatic solution augmented by UN aid “In ten years the history writers will be recording that there was a turning point in history when the clarion call of Canada was heard. They will be teaching that Canada’s decision provoked a reconsideration of the impasse into which the Afghan conundrum was finding itself increasingly locked,” he said.

I don’t believe him that Canada will be hailed for leaving Afghanistan or that any solution offered by any of our political parties will be successful enough for their to be a discernible turning point toward lasting peace any time soon.

In my last post I wrote about multimedia on the Liberal’s website and concluded that they can make a strong impression when they controlled their message. Today I’m writing about the equivalent video on the two main Conservative websites. The office of the PM website focuses on policy and has video of speeches and announcements, the Conservative Party of Canada website has a little bit of policy and a lot of attack advertising against Stéphane Dion.

The office of the PM website has a video of Prime Minister Harper’s statement supporting the recommendations of the panel headed by John Manley on Canada’s future in Afghanistan.

“Through their work Mr. Manley and his colleagues affirmed the strong belief that Canada’s commitment in Afghanistan matters. It matters because it concerns Canadian and global security, it matters because it concerns Canada’s international reputation, as well as obligations that we have undertaken for the well-being of one of the world’s most impoverished and vulnerable people. And it matters in no small measure because of the dedication and sacrifice of Canada’s finest men and women as they work to safeguard our world and bring hope to the Afghan people,” Prime Minister Harper says.

In the statement he is defining the terms of the argument over Afghanistan as to stay equals that it the mission is important and winnable, and to end the combat role equals deserting the troops and Afghanis. He is also seeking to define the independent report, by applauding the panel and adopting one recommendation, as supporting his position, when in fact it is critical of his handling of the situation to date on two major points–that the troops are too few and are ill-equipped, and that the Canadian public is kept in the dark.

By defining the terms of the argument he can win it, and that is the political strength that makes that speech, and his message in general, so successful.

The tone of the statement is sober monotone. The excerpt quoted above could have been said with genuine passion. Maybe it is done on purpose to make him seen like a serious leader, but it is far from inspiring.

The most passion coming from either of the Conservatives’ websites is the ads on the party’s website attacking Dion. In the place of the Liberal TV on the Liberal Party website, on the Conservative Party website are TV ads and radio ads that say Dion is “not a leader” on a variety of issues.

They rely on an embarrassing 30 seconds from a debate with Michael Ignatieff and a picture of him, plastered everywhere, with his hands up, shrugging as if he doesn’t know what to do. Even though they are cheap shots–his English skills must have contributed to the dumb statements in the debate and the clip is taken out of context–they contribute Dion’s reputation as a weak leader.

Even though the election has not been called, campaigning has begun.

Not a sneering comment from a right-winger on the liberal bias of media, Liberal TV is video-on-demand on the federal Liberal’s website. There is just over two years worth of posts, each a short video that encapsulate the Liberal position on an issue.

The most recent addition is the Liberal position on Afghanistan, posted February 7, after Dion and Michael Ignatieff’s return from Afghanistan. It is complied of short clips, beginning with a media scrum.

In the first bite, Dion sounds a bit like a school marm asking Canadian troops to respect propriety the rules.

“We don’t want the extension of the combat mission after 2009, we don’t think it’s good for the mission. When a country comes to a country with a combat mission with a time line, the time line must be respected. This being said we want to play a role after,” he said.

It’s unfortunate, because I think he could have made a strong point, something along the lines of ‘if we stay fighting longer than we promised the Afghanis we would, how can they know we’re there for peace instead of occupation?’ But that’s just my opinion, it may not be Dion’s.

Fortunately for him it gets better.

“Security, training, development, to do something about this narco economy, a lot of roles to play. When we went there, Mr. Ignatieff and I, we have seen how much Canada may have a lot of possibilities as a role, but a combat mission,” he said.

Slightly broken English does not detract from the force Dion spoke that with. In fact, that he speeds up and lets go of the careful consideration of words that often hinders him, he seems to believe what he’s saying and be genuinely passionate. I find it a little thrilling. There should be more of that in politics.

After a clip on explaining that a non-combat role would still mean fighting, but not pro-actively seeking aggression, the video goes to the commons chamber and Dion is yelling over objections from the other side of the isle, behind the camera.

“How can Canadians have any trust in this prime minister with his plan for a never-ending mission? A prime minister that controls everything, but runs nothing!”

Dion has been called “embattled” over and over again the news–almost as if his title is “the embattled” instead of “Hon.” or “L’hon.”–and here he is on the attack. He does not look like the weak leader, unable to respond the threat of an election that he often portrayed as.

The rest of the video is a calm, a little bit sneering and sarcastic, Ignatieff. He is effective back-up, and the two appear to make a strong team in the video.

If the Liberals get their message out looking like this they will have a literally fighting chance in the upcoming election. It will be interesting to see how it plays on real TV, that they do not control.

I think she was right about the groans, but not because the world sees America as “young and naive,” as she said.

Rice summed up America: “We do not accept a firm distinction between our national interests and our universal ideals and we seek to marry our power and principles together to achieve great and enduring influence.”

As Rice talked about American ideals–democracy, free trade, equal opportunity–she was performing an essential American role. Speeches about American ideals are necessary to frame America’s use of its power in idealism, in Rice’s view of her country. I think it is the gulf between the stated ideals–which can be as attractive and persuasive as Rice said she believes they are–and reality that cause the groan.

Rice calls that marriage of ideals and power American realism, and through her speech tried to close the gap between the trio of democracy, free trade and opportunity and reality. She ran through an abridged, selective history of America’s foreign engagement since 2000, and framed America’s intentions in the ideals. She was an effective speaker, and as she talked the gap seemed as if it could close.

I think that’s an amazing feet for a speech. Fortunately, after the half-hour or so of orating, a narrative such as “American realism” is not as powerful when examined with cold sober thought.

A video of Rice’s speech is available on YouTube.

Podcasts and webcasts of other speakers at the World Economic Forum are posted here as they become available.

Bono and Gore spoke together at breakfast panel at the World Economic Forum about the Unified Earth Theory, touting combining combating global warming and eliminating poverty into one strategy to save the future of mankind. Bono and Gore have different takes on what needs to be done.

The awkwardness and contradiction in pairing up Bono and Gore as speakers brought to life the tension of pairing up their causes in a less-than-unified world theory.

The most interesting question asked by host Thomas Friedman went to the rivalry between the two causes.

Bono answered: “If you said that as a result of the earth heating up 10 million children were going to die next year, then you’d read about little else in the newspapers. Well they are going to die next year of extreme poverty, preventable disease, water-born illness, stuff like that. So there’s a little bit of unsettledness.”

Then he rambled on a bit incoherently, and seemed to lose himself in a joke, which then led him into admitting perhaps more than was wise about the economic impact of environmentalism. If you read what he said, you can watch it crash and burn:

“Al Gore is an extraordinary man and he doesn’t confuse zealotry for commitment, and I’ve noticed that, I relaxed a little for that. He’s been around my house, I’m a little bit, you know it’s ‘Here’s the recycler Al’ and ‘It’s a posh car, but it runs on ethanol Al.’ (Al says something about Bono’s kids) Well my wife–it’s like living with Al Gore, sleeping with Al Gore. (Al laughs “There’s your headlines”)It’s not even a professorial things that’s been cited, he’s more sort of rabbinical, or like an Irish Priest, you meet him in the supermarket and confess your sins. And it’s like ‘father Al, I’m not just a noise polluter, I am a noise polluting, diesel-sucking, methane-emitting, Goldstream-flying rockstar. And what are you going to do about it son, are you going to kick the habit? I’m trying father Al, but to be honest with you, you know oil has been very good for me. Those convoys of articulated lorries, petrochemical products, hair gel. There’s that little bit of, then I suppose as you dig a little bit deeper you start to understand that going cold turkey on carbon emissions is a little dangerous. We’ve just seen, with the stock market, you know the prosperity that we’re enjoying is more precarious than we might think, and I like the idea, that’s a horrible thing to say, what I meant to say is climate crisis kinda is where I’m at and I kinda believe in innovation to move away slowly, if this is a bomb, than we dispose of it with careful management and the bomb disposal, and because I remember unemployment in Ireland in the 70s, I just think we’ve just got to be really careful about this. Al describes climate change as an emergency, and if he’s right, than I might have to rethink the way we live, and I don’t want to yet.”

Gore made some sense of Bono’s ramble by saying that it was more up to legislators than citizens to make changes, saying it is less important to change the light bulbs than the laws and treaty obligations. He elaborated on his goal of a binding global contract that combines poverty relief and carbon-pricing by December 2009, for the survival of the human race and the planet. However, while he was convincing of the the need for such a treaty, he made no argument that it would be remotely possible for that to actually ever happen. That struck me as a little bit more self-serving than constructive. (When paired with his comment that none of the candidates for the democratic nomination have a good enough stand on climate change, he seemed like he was telling American’s he told them so back in 2000.)

The pairing of speakers was more effective in the end than it first seemed to be. Despite the conflicts inherent in their idas they managed to riff off each other and efficiently shared the load of speaking for an hour. Maybe that is a good omen for a unified earth.

Not much has been said about what he said. It was something about alternative energy and technology. The hologram played the fiddle, but neither The Guardian nor the blogs that got their information from The Guardian story mentioned why. No one is saying much about what he said either. The comments are about a reference to a common “creator” that left people a little mystified.

The form was supposed to be echo the content of his message by reducing his carbon footprint by using new technology. But blogs have picked up the comment that the speech was still a bore.

Form and content is important in speeches, but not the way Prince Charles used it, since he failed because his message was lost. His speech gives me a reason to explain why I’m writing about speeches:

Public speaking (in the flesh) is almost and outdated form. It’s not ideal for transmitting information or for entertaining people. Speaking at podium is for winning some people over to a point of view and impassioning the ones who already agree, moving all of them. A speaker should walk this weird line between connecting emotionally and intellectually with an audience. I think it’s hard to do well, but I know it works and still happens. Obama, for example. Even small unimportant speeches deserve comment, because the power of standing up at a podium (or with a fiddle?) to say something is leaving yourself open to being criticized or held accountable for what you said.

To follow up on Friday’s post, Pamela Wallin’s speech at the Empire Club is now available on demand from CPac’s Website.

“The hectoring strategy doesn’t work, even if we’re right,” she said.

She may be right. Whoever spray painted the “Impeach Bush” I saw on the side of the Trans Canada Highway near the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal isn’t likely part of the “constructive engagement … without superiority” with the U.S. that Wallin asked for in her speech. And Canadian politicians who criticize the U.S., or “take potshots,” might not be more effectual than the spray painter.

On the other hand, maybe she is missing the point. If in a relationship one party has to muzzle what they have to say in order to keep the thing constructive, is it worth it? While Wallin thinks so, I’m not sure. Asking Canada to keep things constructive may be asking us to give up on, or compromise, too much.

There are platitudes that politicians can use to bridge ideological gaps between us and the U.S. and Wallin included one in her speech: “Open boarders are crucial, but so are secure ones.”

Are empty platitudes constructive?

She also said we’re nosy: “We feel that we can comment on their domestic political matters, but would take offense if they were to do the same.” It sounds logical, but the power of the U.S. makes their business everyone’s business to criticize, constructive or not.

Wallin’s speech will air again on CPac, beginning with 4 a.m. tomorrow. Please see their schedule.