A Canadian citizen of Indian origin was assassinated on Canadian soil in June. In the House of Commons (Yes, In Canada we still approve of a caste system where we accept ourselves as commoners), the Prime Minister accused Indian government security forces of carrying out the dirty deed. The theories as to why this was announced at the time range from deflecting issues from other local crises, to someone in the press acquiring the background information, requiring a pre-emptive strike. The form of Indian denials hint at tacit approval of the assassination and blamed Canada for harboring terrorists.
Another elephant in the room is Canada’s multi-cultural policies over more than 50 years. Domestically, many question why a diaspora of any identifiable group is permitted to bring their grievances to Canada. Is there any specific meaning to being a citizen of Canada? Is citizenship merely transactional? Dual citizenship is far more common today than the 1900s. Is a US-Canadian citizen different than a Lebanese-Canadian or a Hong Kong-Canadian?
Each of the multitude of dimensions are worth exploring, though I will restrict this piece to the Spy Game. The key question is why state sanctioned assassinations seem to be normalized. Russian ex-pats in London, Saudi Journalists in Turkey, or Iranian generals visiting Iraq are but a few examples. Oh yes, there was also that Osama guy somewhere along the way. All these are evolutions of the spy game, glamourized by James Bond. By the way, I blame John F. Kennedy for the glamorization when he expressed his enjoyment of Ian Fleming books. Prior to that glamourization, US spies were more likely finding a way to get a stool sample from Fidel Castro than place an exploding cigar in his humidor!
In my ideal world, we would dispense with the intelligence apparatus, which seems like a ridiculous notion, as spies have been in existence ever since there have been opposing communities, be they hunter-gatherer societies or countries. There is a real need for the gathering of intel as it heightens an understanding of the “other side” and forms the basis of dialog. If one looks at accused spies who are incarcerated in other countries, you will likely find they were engaged in dialog with the natives. The intent is two-fold; understand the native point of view AND discuss your point of view with them. To me that is a valid interchange but now these items are considered election interference in the West, and treasonous proselytization elsewhere.
We need discourse, but don’t need the escalations that are now all too common. We are keenly aware of secrets stolen from us and express moral outrage, but ignore the ugly things we do elsewhere in the world, even against “friends”. What will it take though to get rid of “extra-judicial” murder? The famous “terrorist” label is the epicentre of this dilemma. Israel’s Mossaud likely perfected assassinations at the height of PLO terrorism. Many have learned from the masters, culminating in the killing of a Sikh activist in Surrey, BC. If we need a reset in international relations, this should be the tipping point.
I do have an analogous “solution”. In the sixties, Oil Scouts would climb trees and observe exploration plays of other companies. A regular occurrence would be subjecting themselves from bullets coming their way. It reached a point where it seemed more appropriate to find a way out of this and the Canadian Oil Scouts Association was formed. They agreed to meet once a week at the Holiday Inn and exchange useful information. Canadian Oil Scouts Data was one of the earliest shared databases driving exploration activities.
Can we pick a hotel, maybe somewhere like Geneva, and have regular meetings of the chief spies? Check weapons and recording devices at the door.
