Aussie/UK/US pact threatens global efforts to stem spread of nukes

• September 17, 2021
• Ceasefire.ca
• Blog

A “terrible decision” for nuclear non-proliferation

On September 15, 2021 the American, British and Australian leaders announced a new strategic partnership, with the acronym AUKUS, intended to improve security in the Indo-Pacific.

President Biden stated:

Today, we’re taking another historic step to deepen and formalize cooperation among all three of our nations, because we all recognize the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific over the long term.

This partnership comes with the further “bombshell” announcement that the United States and the UK will transfer highly sensitive nuclear-propulsion technology to Australia. Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in an article entitled The new Australia, UK, and US nuclear submarine announcement: a terrible decision for the non-proliferation regime, Sébastien Philippe states:

Such a decision is a fundamental policy reversal for the United States, which has in the past spared no effort to thwart the transfer of naval reactor technology by other countries, except for its World War II partner, the United Kingdom….

If not reversed one way or another, the AUKUS decision could have major implications for the nonproliferation (sic) regime.

Philippe recalls American opposition to Canadian efforts in the 1980s to acquire French or British nuclear-powered submarines, although he overstates the role of the USA in Canada’s cancellation of the programme.

RI President Peggy Mason, then working in the office of Foreign Minister Joe Clark, comments:

The arrogant, heavy-handed American reaction gave Canadian nuclear-powered sub proponents the rallying cry of “arctic sovereignty”, making it harder for those of us within the Foreign Ministry opposed to this plan on non-proliferation grounds to make our case.

What ultimately killed the deal, however, was the spiralling cost since neither the French nor the British had under-ice capable submarines.

On the content of the nuclear non-proliferation concerns that were conveyed to Canada at the time by officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Philippe explains:

[T]he nonproliferation treaty has a well-known loophole: non-nuclear weapon states can remove fissile materials from international control for use in non-weapon military applications, specifically to fuel nuclear submarine reactors. These reactors require a significant amount of uranium to operate. Moreover, to make them as compact as possible, most countries operate their naval reactors with nuclear-weapon-usable highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel.

With tons of weapons-grade uranium out of international safeguards, what could go wrong?

Arms control experts have long been concerned about the naval propulsion loophole, particularly when Brazil in the 1960s began its long (and still-ongoing) effort to acquire nuclear-propelled submarines.

Whether it is Brazil or Australia that is first to deploy a nuclear-powered naval submarine, that country will be the first non-nuclear weapons state party to the NPT to remove fissile material — uranium — from international safeguards to non-monitored military use.

Potential cascading effects of this decision

Philippe speculates on the potential demonstration effect of this action by Australia, heretofore considered a staunch defender of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Among the highly negative effects he outlines are:

• France may relax its position on not transferring naval reactor technology to Brazil as they continue to help that country build its first nuclear-powered attack submarine;
• South Korea may ask the USA or other nations for an arrangement similar to Australia’s, citing threats from North Korea;
• Russia could begin new naval reactor cooperation with China to boost that country’s submarine capabilities; and
• Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan could explore new transfer opportunities in relation to this technology.

Note that Iran in 2012 expressed interest in enriching uranium to HEU levels for a possible submarine programme.

Philippe concludes:

Until now, it was the US commitment to nonproliferation that relentlessly crushed or greatly limited these aspirations toward nuclear-powered submarine technology.

With the new AUKUS decision, we can now expect the proliferation of very sensitive military nuclear technology in the coming years, with literally tons of new nuclear materials under loose or no international safeguards. [emphasis added]

Huge technical hurdles, unknown costs lie ahead for Australia

There are huge technical hurdles for Australia to overcome, given its almost complete lack of civilian nuclear power infrastructure. And the cost is “anyone’s guess”.

But the biggest challenge will undoubtedly be that of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even if Australia voluntarily agrees to international monitoring, Philippe describes the IAEA dilemma:

The agency, which is currently battling to prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon—25 kilograms (0.025 ton) of HEU according to the internationally agreed standard—will have to figure out how to monitor and account for 100 to 200 times that amount without gaining access to secret naval reactor design information.

The AUKUS agreement provides 18 months for the parties to hammer out the details. In the meantime, domestic opposition is brewing and the current Australian Prime Minister is struggling in the polls.

China and France denounce US nuclear sub pact with Britain, Australia

The title above is also a 16 September 2021 Reuter’s headline, demonstrating that this ill-conceived deal has united in opposition both a close American ally and the very adversary that the new defence pact is intended to guard against.

China’s opposition is two-fold, citing both nuclear non-proliferation concerns and an “obsolete cold war zero sum mentality”. In the words of the Foreign Ministry spokesperson:

The nuclear submarine cooperation between the US, the UK and Australia has seriously undermined regional peace and stability, intensified the arms race and undermined international non-proliferation efforts.

The export of highly sensitive nuclear submarine technology to Australia by the US and the UK proves once again that they are using nuclear exports as a tool for geopolitical game and adopting double standards. This is extremely irresponsible.

As for France, whose $90 billion dollar contract with Australia for diesel-powered subs was summarily cancelled to make way for the nuclear-powered subs, one quote from Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian suffices to underscore the intensity of their reaction:

It’s a stab in the back. This unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision is very similar to what Mr. Trump used to do.

And this condemnation was followed on Friday by France taking the extraordinary step of recalling its ambassadors to the US and to Australia.

New Zealand PM: these subs will not be permitted in our waters

As for Australia’s neighbour, New Zealand, while careful not to criticize the new defence pact per se, Prime Minister Ardern made it clear that the nuclear-powered subs would not be welcome:

New Zealand’s position in relation to the prohibition of nuclear-powered vessels in our waters remains unchanged.

In the view of Ceasefire.ca, the agreement to transfer highly sensitive nuclear technology and nuclear material to Australia should be condemned on both arms control and non-proliferation grounds and we concur with the following conclusion by Sébastien Philippe:

It is difficult to understand the internal policy process that led the Democratic Biden administration to the AUKUS submarine announcement.  It seems that just like in the old Cold War, arms racing and the search for short-term strategic advantage is now bipartisan.

Whither Canada?

Like New Zealand, Canada has soft-pedalled the significance of this new pact, and made no public comment on the negative non-proliferation implications.

That Conservative leader Erin O’Toole would seek Canada’s participation in this misconceived deal is entirely unsurprising.

What is truly astonishing and disturbing, however, is the apparent concurrence of NDP leader Jagmeet Singh:

The pact seems like a potential avenue to add more pressure [on China]. Canada was absent.

Since the NDP has a strong, long-standing position in support of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, we can only assume that Singh was not briefed on the highly problematic implications of the AUKUS deal for containing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Election Call:

We call on all federal parties to recommit publicly to the goals of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament enshrined in the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The growing chasm between China and the USA

For some balance and context that is utterly lacking in most Canadian media coverage of China, we draw readers’ attention to an excellent webinar hosted by the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy (IPD) entitled Ambassador Chas Freeman: The Sino-American split.

The event webpage includes a transcript of the ambassador’s opening remarks as well as a link to the full webinar.  The ambassador concludes his opening statement thusly:

And that is why it distresses me as an American to say that, while China will not gain from the Sino-American split, the United States seems likely to lose from it.

We strongly recommend reading the opening remarks in their entirety, as well as listening to the one-on-one discussion between Ambassador Freeman and Dr. Wenran Jian, an IPD advisor, by clicking here.

Call from across party lines to end Canadian arms sales to Saudi Arabia

So long as the arms continue to flow, this war is just going to get worse

Four former members of Parliament, from four different parties, joined together to pen an opinion piece for the Ottawa Citizen urging Canada to stop arming Saudi Arabia. They are Libby Davies (NDP), Daniel Turp (BQ), Douglas Roche (PC) and Adam Vaughan (Liberal).

They write:

[A]s former members of Parliament from four of Canada’s five major political parties, we find ourselves in agreement on a pressing foreign policy issue that must transcend party lines: Ending Canada’s arms exports to Saudi Arabia must be a priority of the next government, regardless of its political stripe….

The next government of Canada should follow in the footsteps of several European countries and immediately suspend arms exports to Saudi [Arabia], expand humanitarian assistance to Yemen, and play a diplomatic role in bringing an end to this brutal conflict.

Upcoming webinar on Afghanistan on 23 September from 11:00 to 12:30 EST

Further to our many recent posts on the situation in Afghanistan, we are pleased now to announce a webinar hosted by the University of Ottawa Centre for International Policy Studies (CIPS) and the Fragile States Research Network  entitled Afghanistan 360 Degrees… So Now What? The poster accompanying the event announcement reads in part:

Join us for a deeper look at Afghanistan and the post-9/11 path to 2021 and beyond.

Professor and development practitioner Nipa Banerjee will moderate a discussion featuring former Afghanistan Ambassador to Canada Omar Samad and current Rideau Institute President Peggy Mason. This will mark the first public engagement together for Samad and Mason since their online Globe and Mail moderated discussion on 18 May 2006.

Don’t miss this timely discussion! To register on Eventbrite, click here.

Photo credit: Wikimedia (UK Trafalgar class nuclear-powered submarine)

 

Avoiding needless confrontation in the Arctic and rebuilding Canadian disarmament diplomacy

• September 24, 2021
• Ceasefire.ca
• Blog

The last thing the Canadian Arctic needs is British military meddling

An article by CBC senior defence writer Murray Brewster features the headline

Britain offers Canadian military help to defend the Arctic.

Bear in mind that we have an elaborate air, aerospace, land and maritime defence infrastructure with the USA — NORAD — to defend North America. The article suggests that much of Canada’s “reluctance” to accept increased Allied activity in the Canadian Arctic relates to “contested claims to Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic”.

Since Canada has contested legal claims not just with the UK but also with the USA over the Northwest Passage, it defies common sense that this would be the reason for rebuffing British proposals for more military engagement there.

The plain fact is that there’s little agreement among NATO members on the role of the Alliance, or even of individual European members, in the North American Arctic, and its potentially negative impact on the productive non-military cooperation in the entire Arctic, particularly through the Arctic Council, which Russia currently chairs.  And this is reflected in the carefully worded statement by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, referenced in the article, that

the Arctic is a zone of global cooperation …

that also demands collaboration and partnership with close allies.

For a good overview of the issues, see the NAADSN August 2021 policy primer by Mackenzie Foxall, available here. One comment from the introduction should suffice to illustrate the complexities involved:

Russia’s fear of being encircled means that NATO must ensure its engagement in the Arctic is clear and transparent to avoid a rapid rise in tensions between the different sets of actors.

Canada already beefing up surveillance capabilities in the Arctic

Note the following question and answer from the Brewster article:

With Australia planning to acquire nuclear submarines — which conceivably could operate in the Arctic as well — Perry was asked if Canada will have to rely more on its allies to monitor and defend its territory.

“I think the AUKUS deal is an indicator that there are some countries with whom we have been intimately familiar and intimately allied with. Some of our best friends on the planet are firming even tighter, smaller clubs,” he [Perry] said.

The direct answer to the question is that increased surveillance capabilities to monitor Arctic waters, as part of Canada’s shared responsibility with the USA for the defence of North America, have been a priority of the 2017 defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged.

In addition, as detailed in our post-budget blog, the defence portion of the 2021 federal budget includes specific expenditures related to Canada’s contribution to NORAD modernization in the amount of $163 million over 5 years for Canada’s niche area of “all domain situational awareness”, including through upgrades to the North Warning System using artificial intelligence and machine learning.

In the view of Ceasefire.ca,

Increasing Canada’s capabilities in this manner has the twin benefits of bolstering our Arctic legal claims and our contribution to the defence of North America, in a cost-effective and stability-enhancing manner — the very antithesis of an approach based on nuclear-powered submarines.

Indo-Pacific club of three not a snub to Canada at all

Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of the public discussion to date of the new “club” and the alleged “snub” to Canada is the failure to point out the glaringly obvious — the USA, under its excessively confrontational military strategy vis-à-vis China, is doubling down on forward deployments in China’s backyard — hence the attraction of Australia because of its geographic location.

In return for the technologically challenging and hugely expensive nuclear-powered sub deal (which raises serious nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability issues), Foreign Policy reports that, among other things,

The Biden administration is hoping to rotate fighters and bombers to the land Down Under.

And the price Australia will likely pay in terms of further limits on its defence autonomy is a problem Canada knows only too well and is wise to avoid needlessly worsening.

Shadow Foreign Minister Penny Wong posed the question for Australia as follows:

With the prospect of a higher level of technological dependence on the US, how does the Morrison-Joyce government assure Australians that we can act alone when need be; that we have the autonomy to defend ourselves, however and whenever we need to….

Since New Zealand won’t even allow nuclear-powered subs in its waters, their self-exclusion based on long-standing policy is refreshing evidence of independent decision-making on defence matters by a US and Canadian ally. Interestingly, in the expert discussion of the difference between the hawkish Australian view on China and the more nuanced New Zealand position, the similarity with Canada’s position is raised:

In recent years, Canada and New Zealand have had similarities in their orientation toward Beijing – condemning human rights breaches on specific issues in a case-by-case way, but avoiding strong statements on the country more broadly.

Canada had its brief dalliance with nuclear-powered submarines back in the 1980s, as we outlined in last week’s blog.

In the view of Ceasefire.ca,

The truth is Canada was not in any way “excluded” from this potentially destabilizing new club and our resistance to bringing that increased Indo-Pacific instability into the Canadian Arctic should be applauded by all those interested in a Canadian defence policy based on Canadian analysis of Canadian defence and security interests.

A word about defence burden-sharing

In the Murray Brewster article featured earlier in the blog, Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI) Vice-President David Perry is also quoted as follows:

The United States under successive administrations is being far less benign about allies that they look at as pulling — or not pulling — their weight … The United States is looking for people who will pull their weight.

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that Canadian subsidiaries of major American weapons manufacturers, including General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, are regular financial patrons of the CGAI. Yet, surely this is relevant when, under the mantra of “burden sharing”, seemingly uncritical support is offered for American defence priorities, with their relentless focus on more expenditures and more weaponry.

See, for example, the infographic below with the headline trumpeting Chinese increased expenditures, that are dwarfed by those of the USA.

Infographic Courtesy of Visualist Capitalist

Whither Canada?

We applaud Canada’s military restraint in the Arctic, in accordance with long-standing Canadian defence policy under both Liberal and Conservative governments, and urge the opposition parties to constructively contribute to its continuation.

26 September — International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

Achieving global nuclear disarmament is one of the oldest goals of the United Nations, and was the subject of the General Assembly’s first resolution in 1946.

In 2013 the General Assembly established this commemorative day to

advance public awareness and government action to prevent nuclear war and to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world.

In the words of UN Secretary-General António Guterres:

As a global family, we can no longer allow the cloud of nuclear conflict to shadow our work to spur development, achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Now is the time to lift this cloud for good, eliminate nuclear weapons from our world, and usher in a new era of dialogue, trust and peace for all people.

Senior government representatives will attend a high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 28 September to commemorate and promote the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

For further information on actions that legislators, civil society representatives and ordinary citizens alike can take in conjunction with the day, click here.

Whither Canada?

If Canada wants to be more than just a back-row supporter of nuclear disarmament, it will need to invest some diplomatic energy in this endeavour.

So begins an excellent article by two Canadian arms control experts, Paul Meyer and Cesar Jaramillo, entitled Nuclear disarmament must be a priority for the next Canadian government (hilltimes.com, 16 September 2021). It outlines concrete steps that Canada needs to take to help address this “entirely preventable existential threat” that “lingers over humanity”.

Their key recommendations for Canadian government action are:

• Helping to heal the rift between Ban Treaty (TPNW) supporters and opponents by attending, as an Observer, the first meeting of States Parties of the new, landmark treaty.
• Working to strengthen the Stockholm Initiative proposals with inclusion of a “No First Use” of nuclear weapons declaration.
• Elevating Canada’s own involvement in the initiative by attendance at the ministerial level and by offering to host a preparatory meeting of the group before the upcoming NPT Review Conference that is the ultimate focus of the group’s work.

For non-subscribers to the Hill Times, the article is available here in PDF format by the kind permission of the authors.

Many of us had hoped that the gratuitous attacks on the historic Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons would end with the incoming Biden administration, but that proved a false hope.

The latest ignominious example of this tone-deaf attitude can be found in a recent tweet by the new US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, Bonnie Jenkins, summarizing her recent interaction with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) thusly:

Canadian expert Tariq Rauf, a former senior IAEA official, responded as follows:

This is patently unacceptable not to mention silly, as Article III.B.1 of the IAEA Statute clearly authorizes the Agency to support UN mandated disarmament measures:

B. In carrying out its functions, the Agency shall:

1. Conduct its activities in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations to promote peace and international co-operation, and in conformity with policies of the United Nations furthering the establishment of safeguarded worldwide disarmament and in conformity with any international agreements entered into pursuant to such policies

So the lead American arms controller — for the self-proclaimed champion of the “rules based international order” — is putting pressure on the IAEA to ignore its statutory mandate to support such treaty gatherings.

Whither Canada?

In accordance with our once celebrated bridge-building role, we call on Canada to attend as an Observer the meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, as a first tangible step to narrowing the gap between treaty supporters and opponents.  

Photo credit: Wikimedia (Baffin Island Glacier)

Pandemic Urbanism
Praxis in the Time of Covid-19

A Collective Effort
Draft: April 22, 2020This open access reading list is a result of the collective effort of PhD and Masters students inthe Urban Planning program at the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservationat Columbia University. The aim of the list is to provide a collection of materials that address thepandemic as it relates to urbanism, urban planning, architecture, and the built environment. Thematerial presented here is being collected, organized and summarized over the months ofMarch and April 2020 as we witnessed our lives transformed by the COVID 19 crisis, especiallyin New York City, a city many of us call home and a place that has become one of the mainhotspots for the spread of the infectious disease that so far has killed more than 15,000 people(as of April 22). Our hope that this list will be useful in bringing together -in one document-materials that students and scholars will find useful to think about the pandemic as it relates tourbanization. We also hope that this document will become a “living document” that people cantake the liberty to update with relevant entries in the spirit of providing a collective resource forpeople across the globe interested in the implications of COVID-19 for our built environment(instructions to add entries are at the bottom of the document).

About the team:
Assembled and developed during ProfessorHiba Bou Akar ’s spring 2020 classes: “On SpatialExclusion and Planning” and “Advanced Planning Theory.”Contributions by (in alphabetical order): Maureen Abi Ghanem; Sebastian Andersson; DareBrawley; Jenna Davis; Lanier Hagerty; Joe Hunnekens; Martine Johannessen; Stefan Norgaard;Zeineb Sellami; and Wenfei Xu.For comments or questions, please email: hb2541@columbia.edu
Columbia University

Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation Avery Hall, 1172 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10027www.arch.columbia.edu

https://www.academia.edu/43089631/Pandemic_Urbanism_Praxis_in_the_Time_of_Covid_19

 

What to do with America’s nonconformist anti-vaxxers?

Final thought and a warning for nonconformists: understand that the greatest threat to your freedoms will not come from government mandates, but when the deadly virus comes after you.

By

 Michael Payne

 -

September 24, 2021

SOURCENationofChange

One thing is for certain, what is happening in America today relative to the deadly Covid-19 virus and the Delta variant cannot be allowed to continue. This virus, which was almost under control a few months ago, has erupted once again with the sudden appearance of the Delta variant that is spreading rapidly.

TV news reports have been filled with videos of Americans at school meetings, protests, and political meetings, strongly venting their anger at that those who would try to force them to wear masks or get vaccinations. 

We hear many of them say: “Don’t tell me what to do, I’m an American, I have my freedoms and no one is going to take any of them away from me.” I’ve even heard of some radicals who threatened to use weapons against those who would try to force them to comply.

President Biden has recently taken strong measures to deal with this latest surge and issued several mandates intended to force certain governors and people in their states to comply with CDC directives. These mandates will, of course, be met by vehement rejections by Republican governors.

The time for trying to deal with these nonconformists rationally is now over. Strict measures have to be taken to prevent a societal collapse in this country. We have these freedom-loving Americans who thumb their noses at any kind of mandate and then get infected with the virus. So many of them end up in hospitals where tired, overworked doctors and nurses have to treat them. 

Some hospitals are delaying elective surgeries, some of them being of a very serious nature. This simply cannot, must not, continue. Hospitals that are doing this need to reconsider these practices. You can’t delay important medical procedures to treat people who will not conform to CDC guidelines. 

We Americans readily agree with local and federal mandates to use seat belts, to stop at stoplights and stop signs, and we don’t yell FIRE in a movie theater. But some 80 million of us that agree with those particular mandates say “Hell NO” when told to get vaccinated or wear masks. Two different kinds of freedoms?

Right now the president can mandate that federal employees get vaccinations and can pressure large businesses to do the same. He can’t mandate vaccinations for the general population but he can strongly advise people to get them, as he has been doing. 

He can and must mandate vaccinations for those on plane flights.

If we are to get rid of this pandemic for good we somehow have to see state and local governments create strong guidelines to follow. I don’t think we will see mandates for vaccinations for everyone, but state and local governments can advise \businesses to have people wear masks to gain entrance. 

To gain entry to groceries, restaurants, stores such as clothing or hardware, people will have to wear masks whether they are vaccinated or not. That’s what I and my family are doing now.

Huge crowds at sports and other events where multi-thousands of people gather side by side will have to wear masks. Any large gathering, the size to be determined by local officials, will also need them. 

Freedoms are great and very necessary but during crises, when the future of our country is at stake, we all have to put our freedoms aside for a time to preserve them as we go into the future.

At some point in time, if this situation is on the verge of going out of control, Congress must stop the squabbling and the backstabbing and immediately pass laws to make people all over this country comply or face felony charges,

America has arrived at a critical crossroads and it must decide which road and direction to take. To take the left road means we will keep going in the same direction as right now and, based on what is happening with this pandemic, the future will be dire indeed.

Instead, we must take the right road and go in the right direction. That means we as a country have to change, we have to think out of the box to come up with new and more effective ways to deal with and defeat this great threat. 

How will this dark chapter in world history end? Well, I think the best word to describe how it will end is “progression.” Over time, there will be a steady progression in the number of vaccinations that more and more Americans will take to protect themselves.

The good news is that these Americans will largely be protected from getting the virus when coming in contact with these nonconformists who put their own freedom above all others.

Final thought and a warning for nonconformists: understand that the greatest threat to your freedoms will not come from government mandates, but when the deadly virus comes after you. That’s when your freedoms will come to an end.

Opinion: Alberta's feuding conservatives must be careful what they wish for

Author of the article: 

Evan Menzies is a senior campaign strategist with Crestview Strategy and former director of communications for the United Conservative Party and Wildrose caucus.

Calgary Herald
Publishing date:Sep 25, 2021 

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney during a news conference in Calgary on the surging COVID cases in the province on Sept. 15. PHOTO BY AL CHAREST /Postmedia file

A word of warning to conservatives demanding resignations and accelerated leadership reviews against Premier Jason Kenney: be careful what you ask for. A civil war is the last thing the United Conservative Party needs right now.

Since the early ’90s, Kenney has been one of the top leaders and faces of the conservative movement across Canada. He was at the front lines of Alberta budget battles in the early 1990s, stood up for Western Canada for more than a decade and then was a top lieutenant in the Harper government, advancing the conservative agenda and policies that were literally decades in the making. He stitched conservatives back together with 95 per cent support from members and secured an eye-popping mandate to implement one of the biggest agendas of conservative political reform in Alberta history.

But now he’s facing the biggest political challenge of his life after a Delta-driven wave, another contentious caucus meeting and internal party flare-ups.

IN POWER AS PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT FOR 44 YEARS AS A SUPER MAJORITY ONE PARTY STATE

For nearly two decades, our conservative movement in Alberta has been caught in internal civil wars, from the beginning of the end of Premier Ralph Klein’s reign, to the last string of PC premiers, to the brutal infighting and path to unity in 2017, to today over the fight on Alberta’s COVID-19 response.

It’s both a blessing and a curse to have a conservative movement so animated in convictions from all corners of the big blue tent. But it’s clear these battles can be and are bruising and unforgiving. The party has lost good talent through the years as a result.

And while the seemingly endless internal fighting rages on, the left in Alberta and across Canada has been mobilizing as they unite on a policy agenda that drifts further to the left than what would have ever been imaginable even just a few years ago.

Rachel Notley and her Alberta NDP are more beholden than ever to a base that is increasingly hostile to free markets and Alberta’s energy sector. Need proof? Just look at the difference from Notley carefully staying out of the 2019 federal election to in 2021 confidently inserting her endorsement for local federal NDP candidates in Edmonton who want to kibosh any current or future pipeline projects.

Nationally, thanks to a chronically inefficient conservative vote in Eastern Canada, Alberta is staring at a Justin Trudeau-led federal government that has become even more confident and brazen in its policies to knock out any natural resource industry whose headquarters aren’t in the Toronto-Montreal corridor.

So where do conservatives go from here? Kenney has seen some of his own MLAs and party insiders call for his resignation. And a 2022 leadership review has been in the books for months under the party’s own bylaws and now looks set for the spring. Some have demanded one even sooner.

Severely normal United Conservative members have some important reflection to do. A question they should ask themselves is, what do those most adamant in their calls for Kenney’s resignation want to do with the party and the government?

It’s fair to say that Kenney’s greatest critics have been inconsistent and full of contradictions with no binding message or vision. In May, it was that Alberta did not open more quickly and should not have brought in more restrictions while hospitalizations surged. Today, it’s that the province should not have opened for the summer after Alberta reached vaccine targets that would be the envy of any other national jurisdiction in the world. At no point have any of them articulated a concrete policy agenda to the crisis we’re facing that would receive broad support from MLAs internally or the broader public. On top of that, there is no obvious alternative leadership waiting in the wings who has a silver bullet to help us put a permanent end to a stubborn, dangerous and highly contagious respiratory virus as we chase even higher vaccination rates across the province.

There is no doubt frustration and anger with the latest interventions and crisis facing our hospitals. But Kenney and Dr. Deena Hinshaw have put together a policy package focused on the crisis facing our health-care system without losing sight of the importance of keeping businesses, sports and schools open, while rewarding the vaccinated. We will get through this wave.

And conservatives should remember that there remain important non-COVID items on the agenda for the government and Alberta’s conservative movement to make progress on. The Fair Deal agenda must continue, from equalization to court challenges against federal legislation like Bill C-69. Under Kenney, the government has cut nearly a quarter of red tape in just over two years and still has more rules and regulations to untangle out of the economy. Finally, all Albertans must feel and see not just Alberta’s economic recovery, but its total rebound as Canada’s economic leader. The last fiscal update showed that Alberta’s policy agenda of low taxes, fewer regulations and diversification is already taking effect due to important legislative accomplishments like the Job Creation Tax Cut and Open for Business Act

Kenney has told Albertans that he has put party politics on the sidelines while trying to manage the public health crisis. Party members and caucus members who have an axe to grind should try and do the same. There will be a leadership review in 2022 and members can evaluate in full his time as leader from unity, to his performance in the 2019 election, to his term in government, with plenty of time for the party to choose a new leader before the next election in 2023 — if that’s what party members, not outspoken insiders, choose to do.