logo
The world is closing its doors

The world is closing its doors

Opinion
Straws in the wind: recently I ran across a post by the CEO of a countrywide professional association in Canada. People like him are used to hopping across the U.S. border for various meetings several times a month, but he was remarking on what people had been talking about at the association's recent annual conference in a big Canadian city.
What his post said was: 'Consensus here is that it's risky to travel to (U.S. flag emoji) but if you have to go, bring a burner phone. Have a plan in case you get detained. Watch what you say. Who you meet.' And I thought 'Yeah. Me too.'
I'm a journalist so I will still go to the U.S. if I absolutely have to, but not for pleasure, not for paid lectures and things, and yes, please on the burner phone.
Back when I started out in this trade half the world was off limits, especially for freelance journalists. The Cold War reached a second peak in the early '80s and you couldn't go to the Soviet Union unless you had a big media organisation negotiating for you. Even then it took months for a visa, and you were followed everywhere.
The communist-ruled 'satellite' countries in Eastern Europe were a little easier, and China was letting tourists into some parts of the country (but not stray journalists). Albania, North Korea and Iran were completely closed, and most of southeast Asia and much of Central and South America were ruled by military dictators who ran death squads.
Then non-violent democratic revolutions began all over the 'third world,' the communist regimes of Eastern Europe collapsed, and the old Soviet Union itself followed suit. Soon almost the whole world opened up.
It was a nice ride while it lasted, but then the whole process went into reverse.
You won't feel the effects much if you travel as a tourist or even do business abroad, but journalists (including foreign journalists) are the canaries in the coal mine on this and I'm certainly feeling the change. The number of countries I won't go to any more is growing every year.
It started, weirdly enough, with Turkey, a place I thought I knew well. I've lived there, I speak the language (or at least I used to), and I even thought President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was a welcome change from a militantly secular government that ignored the rights of the pious half of the population.
Then the editor of the newspaper that ran this column in Turkey was jailed, the publisher went into exile, and the new regime turned the paper into a government propaganda outlet. I know there's a fat file on me somewhere in Ankara and I've seen the inside of a Turkish jail (as a visitor), so I don't go there any more. Twenty years now.
Next was Russia, where I had been practically commuting in the early 90s. Vladimir Putin was elected in 1999 and it was still all right for a while, but by 2005 he was killing opposition leaders and I started reporting from afar. Note, by the way, that these changes were happening after more or less free elections — although they tended to be the last fair elections.
Then came a round of non-violent pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East, most of them drowned in blood. That set off a whole cluster of civil wars, and the whole region became very hard to work in. It still is.
Next was China, where they arrested, tried and jailed two random Canadian businessmen in 2018, really as hostages to exchange for a Chinese citizen in Canada whom they wanted back.
It wasn't aimed specifically at journalists and the victims were freed after a thousand days in prison, but I and many other people took it as a signal to do your Chinese business from afar.
However, I never thought that I would be adding the United States to the list. Even during Donald Trump's first term foreign journalists were no more at risk of arbitrary imprisonment than the average American citizen, and nobody followed you around or listened to your phone calls. (Well, no more than they listen to everybody else's calls.)
Now, quite suddenly, the United States has become just another great power where foreigners watch what they say, try to minimize contacts with official bodies, or just stay away. The thought even occurs that, as in so many other cases, there will still be elections but we will know the outcome in advance.
It sounds almost hysterical to talk like this and many non-journalist travelers won't even notice it, but the world is closing down again. I have no idea if and when it will reopen.
Gwynne Dyer's new book is Intervention Earth: Life-Saving Ideas from the World's Climate Engineers.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Bell: Danielle Smith and Alberta give Mark Carney an offer he shouldn't refuse
Bell: Danielle Smith and Alberta give Mark Carney an offer he shouldn't refuse

Calgary Herald

time35 minutes ago

  • Calgary Herald

Bell: Danielle Smith and Alberta give Mark Carney an offer he shouldn't refuse

It is a letter. A five-page letter. Article content Article content You could call it THE letter. Whatever happens with this letter will play a big, big part in Alberta's place in Canada going forward. Article content It is dated May 16, signed by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and addressed to Prime Minister Mark Carney. Article content On Monday, June 2, this letter will be on the table when Carney sits down with the premiers in Saskatoon. Article content Article content Before Smith gets around to making her offer, she begins her letter to Carney talking about how what Alberta wants will 'address serious issues plaguing Canada's economic well-being and the very real sense of alienation felt across the West.' Article content Article content This is serious stuff. Alberta has had more than enough. Article content She says Asian customers in Japan and South Korea have told her they believe Canada needs to 'accelerate market access of our oil, LNG, ammonia and critical minerals faster.' Article content Article content Alberta's pitch is to build out the B.C. port of Prince Rupert. Article content 'We must build on what TMX delivered by creating another pipeline that delivers similar economic uplift, jobs, opportunities for reconciliation and Canadian security.' Article content Article content The premier says an oil pipeline has to be on Carney's list of nation-building projects to be fast-tracked. Article content It will also … and read between these lines … 'send an unwelcome signal to Albertans concerned about Ottawa's commitment to national unity.' Article content Smith adds there must be 'a clear path to increasing oil and gas production so that Canada can achieve its full economic potential by avoiding the stranding of trillions of dollars of energy assets in Alberta.'

Trump and Putin want to talk business once the Ukraine war ends. Here's why it won't be easy
Trump and Putin want to talk business once the Ukraine war ends. Here's why it won't be easy

CTV News

timean hour ago

  • CTV News

Trump and Putin want to talk business once the Ukraine war ends. Here's why it won't be easy

In this photo released by the Russian Defense Ministry Press Service on Friday, April 19, 2024, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, second right, visits a factory workshop as he checks the implementation of the state defense order at an enterprise of the military-industrial complex in the Omsk region of Russia, which produces tanks and heavy flamethrower systems. (Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP, File) Hundreds of foreign companies left Russia after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, including major U.S. firms like Coca-Cola, Nike, Starbucks, ExxonMobil and Ford Motor Co. But after more than three years of war, U.S. President Donald Trump has held out the prospect of restoring U.S.-Russia trade if there's ever a peace settlement. And Russian President Vladimir Putin has said foreign companies could come back under some circumstances. 'Russia wants to do largescale TRADE with the United States when this catastrophic 'bloodbath' is over, and I agree,' Trump said in a statement after a phone call with Putin. 'There is a tremendous opportunity for Russia to create massive amounts of jobs and wealth. Its potential is UNLIMITED.' The president then shifted his tone toward Putin after heavy drone and missile attacks on Kyiv, saying Putin 'has gone absolutely crazy' and threatening new sanctions. That and recent comments from Putin warning Western companies against reclaiming their former stakes seemed to reflect reality more accurately — that it's not going to be a smooth process for businesses going back into Russia. That's because Russia's business environment has massively changed since 2022. And not in ways that favor foreign companies. And with Putin escalating attacks and holding on to territory demands Ukraine likely isn't going to accept, a peace deal seems distant indeed. Here are factors that could deter U.S. companies from ever going back: Risk of losing it all Russian law classifies Ukraine's allies as 'unfriendly states' and imposes severe restrictions on businesses from more than 50 countries. Those include limits on withdrawing money and equipment as well as allowing the Russian government to take control of companies deemed important. Foreign owners' votes on boards of directors can be legally disregarded. Companies that left were required to sell their businesses for 50 per cent or less of their assessed worth, or simply wrote them off while Kremlin-friendly business groups snapped up their assets on the cheap. Under a 2023 presidential decree the Russian government took control of Finnish energy company Fortum, German power company Unipro, France's dairy company Danone and Danish brewer Carlsberg. Even if a peace deal removed the U.S. from the list of unfriendlies, and if the massive Western sanctions restricting business in Russia were dropped, the track record of losses would remain vivid. And there's little sign any of that is going to happen. While the Russian government has talked in general about companies coming back, 'there's no specific evidence of any one company saying that they are ready to come back,' said Chris Weafer, CEO of Macro-Advisory Ltd. consultancy. 'It's all at the political narrative level.' Russia's actions and legal changes have left 'long-lasting damage' to its business environment, says Elina Ribakova, non-resident senior fellow at the Bruegel research institute in Brussels. She said a return of U.S. businesses is 'not very likely.' 'We need to strangle them' In a meeting at the Kremlin on May 26 to mark Russian Entrepreneurs Day, Putin said that Russia needed to throttle large tech firms such as Zoom and Microsoft, which had restricted their services in Russia after Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, so that domestic tech companies could thrive instead. 'We need to strangle them,' Putin said. 'After all, they are trying to strangle us: we need to reciprocate. We didn't kick anyone out; we didn't interfere with anyone. We provided the most favorable conditions possible for their work here, in our market, and they are trying to strangle us.' He reassured a representative from Vkusno-i Tochka (Tasty-period) — the Russian-owned company that took over McDonald's restaurants in the country — that Moscow would aid them if the U.S. fast food giant tried to buy back its former stores. Asked for comment, McDonald's referred to their 2022 statement that 'ownership of the business in Russia is no longer tenable.' Not much upside On top of Russia's difficult business environment, the economy is likely to stagnate due to lack of investment in sectors other than the military, economists say. 'Russia has one of the lowest projected long-term growth rates and one of the highest levels of country risk in the world,' says Heli Simola, senior economist at the Bank of Finland in a blog post. 'Only Belarus offers an equally lousy combination of growth and risk.' Most of the opportunity to make money is related to military production, and it's unlikely U.S. companies would work with the Russian military-industrial complex, said Ribakova. 'It's not clear where exactly one could plug in and expect outsize returns that would compensate for this negative investment environment.' Repurchase agreements Some companies, including Renault and Ford Motor Co., left with repurchase agreements letting them buy back their stakes years later if conditions change. But given Russia's unsteady legal environment, that's tough to count on. The Russian purchasers may try to change the terms, look for more money, or ignore the agreements, said Weafer. 'There's a lot of uncertainty as to how those buyback auctions will be enforced.' But what about the oil and gas? Multinational oil companies were among those who suffered losses leaving Russia, so it's an open question whether they would want to try again even given Russia's vast oil and gas reserves. US.. major ExxonMobil saw its stake in the Sakhalin oil project unilaterally terminated and wrote off US$3.4 billion. Russia's major oil companies have less need of foreign partners than they did in the immediate post-Soviet era, though smaller oil field services might want to return given the size of Russia's oil industry. But they would have to face new requirements on establishing local presence and investment, Weafer said. Some never left According to the Kyiv School of Economics, 2,329 foreign companies are still doing business in Russia, many from China or other countries that aren't allied with Ukraine, while 1,344 are in the process of leaving and 494 have exited completely. The Yale School of Management's Chief Executive Leadership Institute lists some two dozen U.S. companies still doing business in Russia, while some 100 more have cut back by halting new investments. EU sanctions could remain even if U.S. open U.S. sanctions are considered the toughest, because they carry the threat of being cut off from the U.S. banking and financial system. But the EU is still slapping new rounds of sanctions on Russia. Even if U.S. sanctions are dropped, EU sanctions would continue to present compliance headaches for any company that also wants to do business in Europe. David Mchugh, Daria Litvinova And Katie Marie Davies, The Associated Press

Do airlines owe you compensation for turbulence-induced damages? Here's what we found out
Do airlines owe you compensation for turbulence-induced damages? Here's what we found out

Vancouver Sun

time3 hours ago

  • Vancouver Sun

Do airlines owe you compensation for turbulence-induced damages? Here's what we found out

This month, two passengers who claimed there should be no upper limit on the amount of compensation Air Canada owes to injured passengers lost their case in an Australian court. The case stems from a July 2019 Air Canada flight from Vancouver to Sydney, Australia. The Canadian Press reported at the time that the flight hit severe turbulence and was forced to divert to Hawaii. Thirty people were sent to hospital, nine in serious condition, some suffering lacerations and injuries to their head, back and neck, emergency first responders in Hawaii said. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Mother and daughter Renae and Stephanie Evans claimed they suffered spinal and psychological injuries during the flight. They also claimed that Air Canada, in its general rules, waived an upper limit set by an international treaty called the Montreal Convention. The New South Wales Supreme Court initially ruled in favour of the passengers, a decision which was overturned by that state's Court of Appeal. The High Court then unanimously dismissed the passengers' case. The Montreal Convention (or more formally the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air) is an international treaty that was drawn up in 1999 and came into force in 2003. It sets limits for airline liabilities for everything from lost luggage to loss of life. In the case of the latter, it said airlines were liable for up to 100,000 SDR for the bodily injury or death of a passenger. SDR or 'special drawing rights' is an economic unit that can be translated into any local currency; 100,000 SDR is worth about $192,000 Canadian. The amount is examined and may be revised every five years. As of 2024 it stands at 151,880 SDR, equivalent to $277,940 Canadian. The plaintiffs had argued that Air Canada's terms and conditions included the phrase: 'There are no financial limits in respect of death or bodily injury of passengers,' suggesting that the airline was opting out of the limit set by the Montreal Convention. However, Lawson Hennick, founding lawyer at Hennick Law in Markham, Ont., told National Post that on closer reading of the airline's regulations and the lawsuit, the high court's decision makes sense. 'Article 25 of the Montreal Convention expressly permits carriers to agree to higher or unlimited liability,' he said. 'The court acknowledged this, noting that a carrier can raise or even eliminate the threshold at which the no-negligence defence applies.' However, 'the court rejected this position, finding that Air Canada had not clearly waived its right to rely on the no-negligence defence.' Specifically, language in the Montreal Convention note that its liability rules 'supersede and prevail over any provisions of this tariff which may be inconsistent.' Meanwhile, Air Canada's own international tariff rules note that, 'except as otherwise provided herein,' the airline 'reserves all defences available.' Said Hennick: 'In the result, the passengers were unsuccessful in establishing that the carrier had waived the Article 21(2) defence for claims exceeding the maximum liability set out in the Montreal Convention.' Hennick noted that the Montreal Convention, aside from its cap on liabilities, is very open-ended when it comes to injury or loss of life while flying. 'The Montreal Convention says the carrier is liable for damages sustained in the case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking,' he said. 'So if you're injured by turbulence, that's considered onboard the aircraft, right? So I would say that would be something that could be compensable.' He added that passengers can sue beyond the limit, 'but if you want to claim it under the Montreal Convention, the benefit of that is all you have to do is prove your injuries.' 'As soon as you start claiming amounts above and beyond that, then they can start putting in defences for negligence. They can start alleging, well, the injury wasn't caused by us, it was caused by a third party, or could have been a result of pre-existing issues, or something other than that. But if you're going to be pursuing the limits under the Montreal Convention, it's a strict liability regime. You just have to show that you're injured on board the aircraft, prove the value of your injuries, and then they'll have to pay it.' One downside, he noted, is that the convention only mentions physical injuries. 'So if it's a purely psychological claim or psychiatric trauma, and you're not physically hurt … you may not be able to recover anything out of the Montreal Convention.' Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store