February 2007

Although his first two points are misleading, the last point is so completely false as to be ludicrous. Thousands of Canadian Christians are spilling their blood, sweat, and tears on African soil in the fight against aids, malaria, and other killers. Hundreds of thousands are active here on the home front, donating millions of dollars, lobbying the government, and setting up charities to address issues like education, the environment, and health in a land upon which they will never set foot.

cbc’s Brian Stewart, one of Canada’s most prominent foreign correspondents, railed against the grievous myth promoted in Alexander’s editorial in his 2004 convocation address at Knox College in Toronto: “For many years, I’ve been struck by the rather blithe notion, spread in many circles including the media and taken up by a large section of our younger population, that organized, mainstream Christianity has been reduced to a musty, dimly lit backwater of contemporary life . . . . From what I’ve seen in my ringside seat at events over the decades, there is nothing further from the truth . . . . I’ve never reached a war zone, famine, or crisis anywhere that some church organization was not at long before me.”
Jodi Martens
Surrey, BC

Cooking with Gas Christian Parenti’s review of five recent books on climate change (“The Bad Future,” November) provided a clear summary of what may become the defining social and political issue of our time. Unfortunately, most Canadians do not understand the relatively simple principles underlying climate change and they underestimate how truly difficult it will be to significantly reduce greenhouse- gas emissions.

There is a direct analogy between the use of carbon-based fossil fuels by our civilization and metabolism in the human body. An increase in the number of humans or their physical activity by necessity results in an increase in the consumption of food (also carbon- based) and a consequent increase in the production of CO2 and H2O through respiration. Physical fitness can partially mitigate this increase but only to a limited extent.

Similarly, increases in economic growth or activity by necessity require an increase in the input of energy, and, given that carbon-based fossil fuels are our primary source, there will be an inevitable increase in the emission of CO2 and H2O. Of course, some increases in efficiency are possible, but the laws of thermodynamics dictate that economic growth and decreasing energy consumption are likely to be incompatible. Our experience to date certainly confirms this. We have had continuous economic growth for most of the past two centuries and concomitant increases in energy consumption.

The challenge we face is how to maintain the wonderful strengths of our liberal democracy, which has brought so much freedom and prosperity to the majority of the Canadian population, while learning to live within the constraints defined by our need to reduce fossil-fuel consumption and lessen our impact on the global climate.
St. J. Dixon-Warren
Ottawa, Ontario


Taylor Owen and Ben Kiernan respond to a letter about their article “Bombs Over Cambodia” (October):
J. K. Halligan suggests that the new US Air Force data we presented on the bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, which revealed the total payload to have been far greater than previously believed, would not necessarily have translated into higher casualty figures for Cambodians. Halligan also casts doubt on our thesis that the bombing drove survivors to support the fledgling Khmer Rouge insurgency.

While it’s true that “vast areas” of rural Cambodia and the Ho Chi Minh Trail are indeed “sparsely inhabited,” those were not the only targets of the US carpet bombardments from 1969 to 1973. Our extensive maps show that the Air Force heavily targeted most of the populated lowlands of Cambodia. Matching detailed topographic base maps with the Pentagon’s bombing data shows hundreds of Cambodian villages included in B-52 target “boxes.”

Of course, the Khmer Rouge also profited from their alliance with Prince Sihanouk and from aid they received from China and Vietnamese Communists, but the role of the US bombardment in helping bring this genocidal regime to power is undeniable. There is no reason to ask the former Khmer Rouge head of state to confirm the fact; it is well documented in contemporary US official reporting and by numerous peasant witnesses. To take one example, the following response to our Walrus article was posted on my website, taylorowen.com:

I could not agree with you more based on my experiences during the bombing in Takeo around 1972. The bombings were [spreading] further into towns and villages. My parents’ house was hit by the bombs, and we had to move to the opposite side of the country. We had known [that] almost the entire village that survived from the bombings had joined forces with the Khmer Rouge.

Kissinger and Nixon did not plan this, but they likely knew it was happening. The same May 1973 cia report we quote in our article as stating that the Khmer Rouge were using the bombing as propaganda also confirmed that the propaganda campaign had been effective. And yet, the US bombing campaign continued until Congress prohibited it.

After the Khmer Rouge victory in April 1975, the burgeoning US-China alliance led Washington to quietly support the Pol Pot regime. Kissinger told Thailand’s foreign minister on November 26, 1975, “You should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in our way.”

Tusk, Tusk