This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Trudeau accuses India in killing of Sikh leader on Canadian soil
First of all, I want to state that my epistemic status is huh, rather an informed opinion, but I struggle to think of anyone in a better position on The Motte to discuss this, so bear with me.
India has had its share of irredentists, separatists and good old fashioned terrorists over the years. You have the Maoists still lurking in the north east, playing hot and cold with the government via their jungle boogaloo. Islamic terrorism was a serious issue in 2010s, though it's died down. There were the Tamil Tigers down south, who proved a severe PITA for a decade or so, and then the Khalistanis, who have been largely neutered in-country but find refuge in the numerous, prosperous Sikh diaspora abroad.
The last two have had the dubious distinction of getting confirmed kills on two Indian Prime Ministers (relatives to boot).
Khalistan is the supposed homeland of the Sikh peoples, largely surrounding Punjab in the west. Unable to get it during the original Partition of India, they waged a brutal war against the Indian government for decades, peaking in the 70s and 80s. There were quite a few pogroms and riots, with Hindu on Sikh violence in the rest of India, and vice versa in their population centers.
These days, the movement is moribund within India itself, most young Sikhs don't really pay it any heed, and the older aren't the demographic to go planting bombs for the large part. Sikhs are well integrated into Indian society, and haven't had that consistent friction that the Muslims have had with their Hindu co-ethnics.
Not that you'd know this abroad. Much like IRA sympathizers hanging around in New Jersey bars, the exodus of Sikhs in the 70s and 80s ossified in amber a large migrant population with a grudge to bear against the Indian government.
I'd draw a distinction between these first-wave migrants, and a more recent influx of Sikhs who are drawn more by the prospects of making it big in Canada, or the West in general, rather than any real grievance.
While Khalistan is dead in the water, it's a popular rallying cry there, with Western governments treating it with a mixture of bemused tolerance and kid-gloves for fear of pissing off the strong Sikh voting bloc. Speaking ill of them is, from what I've heard, a surefire way of losing a narrow election, but they're otherwise model citizens and nobody wants to press the issue.
Now, Modi stands accused of the shooting of this dude sometime in June, when he was shot by unidentified gunmen in the parking lot of a gurdwara in Surrey. If there's more substance to the accusation, they haven't been made public, but the heads of state have met to hash it out.
From what I can tell, Modi's response was "we didn't do it, but if it happened, he had it coming", strongly protesting the accusations while demanding Canada be less lenient in harboring terrorists.
Modi also stands accused of the assassination in Lahore of another Khalistan leader, not that anyone particularly cared at the time, and that's just the usual India-Pakistan bhai-bhai at play.
That's the gist of it, on one hand, we have the fact that India has largely refrained from extraterritorial assassinations, certainly not to the degree that the US, Russia or Israel are fond of. I struggle to think of a single example, not that I'm an expert.
On the other, who the fuck else has a motive to whack the dude? I don't think relations between India and Canada are bad enough for the latter to make entirely unfounded accusations, and they've even roped in a few other countries like the UK and US to bring diplomatic pressure to bear. The Head of Foreign Intelligence for India was kicked out from Canada, and some bloke named Oliver Sylvester was the tit to that tat.
I'd wager 50% odds that India was responsible based on the balance of evidence, and I wonder if this will be a flash in the pan that peters out when the Sikhs are mollified, or if Canada really wants to pick a fight with an otherwise neutral/positively inclined major nation.
But if you're curious, this means zilch in terms of impact on Modi's popularity of home, you think supporters of a strongman are going to be mad when he strongmans? Even the libs over at /r/India who foam at the mouth at the sight of Modi are of the opinion he had it coming.
The framing of this that Canada is the one starting things is poor form. I'm surprised considering your desire to emigrate to greener pastures to not consider the consequences of events like this.
In Australia, we occasionally have these sorts of flare ups of major nations with a large emigre population violating our sovereignty because, basically fuck you that's why. The calculus of the meddler is ostensibly 'well they aren't a major security or economic partner so who cares. What are they going to do?'
Nothing gets people from multicultural countries who are neutral on large immigration to turn anti-immigrant faster than immigrants' mother countries exerting their will in our home. Recent local examples of this involve China sending police officers to police chinese immigrants in Australia, framing it as a benign outreach service used for issuing drivers licenses and the like. Except without having a fixed address. Or notifying the Australian Government..
I despise Trudeau, but he's speaking to the local population and absolutely if push comes to shove he will tell India to fuck off in diplomatic speak, because to do otherwise would be political suicide. Middle powers cannot sanction effectively as independents, but there are often diplomatic blocs to exert influence precisely to stop this sort of casual disregard for civil unrest in targeted nations.
Edit: A couple of words for clarity.
As much as I dislike Modi, I have even more disdain for terrorists actively fomenting strife in India from comfortably offshore. Make no mistake, violations of sovereignty aside, very few people here think his death was a tragedy.
At the very least, I don't bat an eye when the West enjoys a little 'ol extraterritorial killing, say Suleimani in Iran, or when Mossad gets up to their usual shenanigans. So I'm not sure why I'm supposed to decry this too much when a third world country returns the favor.
There's one less terrorist and one less Canadian citizen on this earth, and my desire to shed tears for the latter are far outweighed by the elimination of the former.
At any rate, I'd be bemused if anyone thought I was a radical Indian free thinker along the lines of Rushdie with a nation-state actor or close out for my blood. I neither expect to get offed in a similar manner, nor do I aspire to end up in a position where I order the offing, so my response is moo.
I'd certainly be surprised if this had any effect on attitudes towards emigration, for the obvious reason that the "victim" is an immigrant himself. You'd expect that to make bleeding hearts clamor to bring more people to the relative safety of their shores.
All other sentiments and realpolitik aside, most people don't really want brutal tit-for-tat murders in their country, regardless of who the perpetrators and victims are. Speaking as an American that holds no general animus towards Indians in general or Indian immigrants to the West more specifically, the main gut feeling I get from this incident is, "can't you people leave your internecine disputes in your old country when you move here?". I don't expect many people in good social standing to say as much out loud, but I kind of do expect that this is the prevailing gut feeling that most people in the West have when they hear that Indian immigrants have brought a bloody conflict that we don't even really understand to North America.
More options
Context Copy link
If you maintain this attitude when foreign governments kill Indian citizens on Indian soil because 'they were political agitators and had it coming', then I will accept your point. For what its worth I'm not for extrajudicial killing, even though I understand that through democracy Western citizens have some level of responsibility for past killings done in their supposed national interest.
I'm sure the political and media class will stress to separate Indian immigrants from the Indian government (in fact from the articles I've read I think this process has already started). However many locals will not buy that argument and will see it as foreign political agitation being imported in line with the increase in profile of Indian political activists operating in Canada.
In Australia, past examples of this occured with Anti-CCP activists protesting in Australian major cities. As a consequence China sends foreign agents to exert their influence such as organising pro-CCP students in Australian universities to counter protest. Australians end up watching foreign political battles over something that doesn't concern them playing out in our public sphere..
Of course the Cathedral will play up this kind of thing as the right to free protest, but much of the public here would just prefer that they shut their mouths and get on with life. Pro-Indian government activists can say 'well they started it', but regular citizens here can find that an incredibly weak argument. People don't care who started it, they just want it to stop. It has nothing to do with us and the easiest way to make sure this doesn't happen is to not allow people to immigrate from countries with significant political instability. With more acts like this there will be more pressure to limit immigration. Normally I would laud this and from my point of view many political dissidents (including the deceased) who refuse to live quietly should fail the citizenship character test, but the brazenness of this sort of foreign interference sticks in my craw.
Maybe it's just learned helplessness, but I can't imagine the Canadian federal government ever reducing immigration. It's never happened in my lifetime. Even when they shut the borders due to covid, they made up for it by granting free permanent residency to almost all foreigners who happened to be working in Canada.
I'm not saying it's impossible, just that my naive model of the world would have predicted a reduction years ago, and I don't have a good model to replace it with.
It would actually take a fair few acts of violence and significant civil unrest for governments like Canada and Australia to heavily restrict immigration as a long term policy. This is because it is seen as the only viable path to propping up GDP in the face of TFR declines. With enough events like this though, political hands can be forced. At the very least immigration from incompatible cultures can be restricted (such as with the restrictions of emigres from Sudan in the wake of ethnic gangs in Melbourne)
Canada's response will probably end here with the equivalent of writing a very angry letter telling India how angry they are. I think its weak to be honest and will only encourage more of these sorts of blatant violations of sovereignty. Unfortunately the tribe has spoken with other Five Eyes members wringing their hands and
sending thoughts and prayers"being deeply concerned" at the attack rather than presenting a united front.Ostensibly the US has told other Five Eyes members to do nothing in the face of the US trying to court India as an ally against Russia and China (a fact probably not unknown to Modi and potentially a precipitator of the attack). There is some indication that the US aided Canadian Intelligence in the investigation of the assassination and I believe there is pretty strong evidence which the head of CSIS would have carried with them to confront India behind closed doors prior to the G20. When Modi told Trudeau to go pound sand in the face of that evidence it precipitated Trudeau's public accusation in parliament.
For me, I'm updating my priors on all sorts of things. I expect the US to no longer support Australia in the aftermath of similar events if they have a larger diplomatic goal they are pushing for. I also have significantly revised my opinion of Indian culture and the ability of Indians (Hindutva/Sikh) to peacefully immigrant without significant impact on host country ethnic tension and social cohesion. Finally with Australia's response I need to update my opinion on how subservient Five Eyes members are to the political whims of the US.
I apparently have not been cynical enough with regard to sovereignty in the middle power Western nations.
I don't know. You're not actually indicating a standard of anything to be done that anyone has failed to meet.
You've implicitly criticized the FVEY allies for not presenting a united front, and accused the US of telling other members to do nothing, but the thing about a front is that it advances on an objective. What actual policy is not being done due to the alleged US telling others to do nothing? What, beyond rhetoric, is Canada even asking for?
Before something can be denied, it must be asked for. If it's not being asked for, if there's not a clearly reasonable alternative as opposed to vague gestulating of 'do something!', it's not a cynical take to blame others for not providing it, it's just projection of impotence onto external actors.
Which besides not being cynical, doesn't exactly make sense in the context of specific alliance contexts. FVEY, for example, is an Intelligence alliance, not a defense or economic alliance or common migration zone. There's no obligation or implicit expectation to, say, enact sanctions, conduct retaliatory strikes, or so on in the context of FVEY. It would be quite reasonable if Canada requested/expected Intelligence-related support... which by your implications they did.
The type of alliance matters because it means the type of influence authorities that matter changes. If this assassination is to be treated as, say, a potential casus belli, that wouldn't be a FVEY matter- that would be a NATO matter. But every NATO member's interest in [insert unstated desired response here] matters, because NATO is a consensus-based organization with multiple contemporary examples of the United States not being able to force to decide to its preferences.
So before you be cynical, I'd recommend you be specific. Which alliance structure that Canada is in- and it's in a number other than FVEY- should be responsible for this, in what way, and when/how has Canada even asked them to?
I reject your framing. Your use of the FVEY acronym does not lend weight to your argument that because 'Well acktually, Five Eyes is just a SIGINT focused intelligence sharing apparatus', and because of this it does not imply other deep historical alliances based on shared cultural backgrounds and systems of government under the international rule of law.
You seem to be asking for an NATO article 5 or the like formal agreement signed by the US and the other partners, the absence of which implies that partners are under no expectation to intervene when their allies' territorial sovereignty has been violated. There is precedent that this has not been necessary in the past to provide support and retaliation when assassinations have been conducted against allied nation's citizens on their home soil.. Note the response of non-NATO members (such as Australia) in expelling diplomats in solidarity in the example.
Various news articles have described that this discussion took place out of the public view. I presume Canada has asked for support in sanctioning India in some form, potentially expelling diplomats as occurred in the example above.
As for the rest of your post, I will concede that perhaps all of the Five Eyes partners decided together that they would not support Canada beyond toothless statements of concern and it wasn't the US doing so unilaterally with their outsized influence. It does not change my cynicism of the value of these alliances when partners have other interests.
Not that my cynicism was purely directed at the alliances themselves. It was also concerning the ability of Middle Power western nations to individually defend their sovereignty against the interests of their suzerain and the machinations of
neutral/friendlycontemptuous powers. Not doing so will only encourage future acts of interference.Edit: a couple of words for clarity
That's nice, but since I was asking for yours, that's kind of illustrating the point.
Since that was not the argument, it doesn't really matter that it doesn't lend weight to an argument I didn't make.
It does, however, demonstrate the criticism that you're not actually addressing the point of what alliance is not being honored to do what.
I'm not asking for a NATO article 5. I'm asking what alliance you think is supposed to do what that they refused to do. You are avoiding all three parts of the question - what alliance format is relevant, what that alliance should do, and who refused.
Moreover, you've already countered your own position repeatedly, because your own prior post already had the alliance structure provide support- in identifying that it was India- while your own latest example actually has both a relevant alliance context- NATO which stands in contrast to the perpetrator identified- and is an alliance structure where the US demonstratably has not been able to bend the alliance to accept policies the US government wants. This not only undermines the appeal to ambiguity of general-form alliances vis-a-vis alliances for a purpose, but does so by counter-examples to American hyperagency
While this certainly is one form of the motte and bailey the site is named for, inventing grievances from an admitted lack of information is poor grounds for justifying cynicism.
Ass the saying goes, assuming makes an ass out of you, especially when the assumption serves as the justification for further condemnation.
Your cynicism is currently unsupported, and immature at best... not least because you have not actually identified what Canada could, let alone should, be doing to produce different results.
Calling statements toothless is a pejorative, but not particularly relevant as far as subjective benchmarks. Sanctioning India in some form could be called toothless. Expelling diplomats is practically pro forma as far as these sort of incidents go, the epitome of doing something just to be seen as doing something, and so would be just as guilty of the condemnation of being too weak and insignificant to deter future infringement. Even a formal declaration of war would be pretty toothless given the, well, toothiness of the Canadian navy.
If everything upto and including war can be dismissed as weak and insignificant, the criticism loses all merit. Hence why you are being asked to proffer a credible standard.
Since you've yet to establish that the claimed failure occurred, or even a line of response that couldn't be dismissed as toothless and only encouraging future acts of interference...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It sounds like that makes two of us. I agree with the rest of your comment, too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As a slightly more nationalist Indian than the one you replied to, here's my perspective: I don't really care if Canada stops immigration from India. I have no plans to leave India, and any Indians who do wish to do so can fend for themselves. The Indian government doesn't need to facilitate people who want to emigrate. If that's the price India has to pay to whack a terrorist abroad, I would support more terrorists being whacked. If it leads to anti-india protests in Canada, well that's nothing new. Khalistanis in Canada, the US and the UK have organised such protests in the past, even to the point of attacking the Indian high commission. If Canada doesn't like extra-judicial killings, it could have extradited the guy designated as a terrorist by a fellow democracy and allowed him to stand trial in India.
The Indian government rules India, not Canada. Canada is a sovereign country and is under no obligation to extradite anyone to India. Why does its refusal to do so mean the Indian government can commit murder in Canada?
Legally or practically?
Legally, it doesn't. Practically, it means cost-benefit considerations change in the general terms. Canada is under no obligation to extradite anyone to India; Canada is also not under no obligation to not extradite anyone to India. How willing Canada is to extradite people in general is going to shape how other actors approach it on the subject of dissidents abroad.
Refusals of extradition leading to unilateral as the requesting country considers other methods isn't an uncommon thing, it's an established part of history. That's why extradition agreements aren't a political favor, they are a mechanism to limit score-settling abroad or permitting other country's internal political disputes from being based in one's own territory. Just as the premise of providing support to another country's dissidents from your own territory to weaken them is a tactic as old as time, so is the tactic of extraditing another country's trouble-makers back to them. Canada refusing to do so is a position- it's not the end of the matter.
Canada is a sovereign country under a Westphalian model. So is India. The Westphalian model offers no endorsement to India's alleged activity, but it also offers no remedy to Canada, because there is no legal appeal to enforce corrections for violations between Sovereign countryies, because if there was they wouldn't be Sovereign.
This is why international politics is generally described as amoral and anarchistic- because the ability to enforce one's preferences is limited to one's own willingness to retaliate.
More options
Context Copy link
Would you apply that logic to Afghanistan refusing to extradite Osama bin Laden?
No, because we were at war. If we had been at peace, then yes. Another difference is we have an extradition treaty with India. Presumably, there is a good reason he wasn't extradited and there was a possibility of negotiating something but it didn't happen for some reason. The solution to this general problem has been worked out between these two countries and India shouldn't be resorting to something approaching an act of war.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I can't recall that ever happening, at least leaving aside the cold war with Pakistan, but it's certainly hasn't happened to anyone I had any reason to care about.
The closest notable target I can think of is the Dalai Lama, and even then my response would largely be a shrug, if you're willing to take my word for it.
You would shrug if the Dalai Lama were assassinated??? Come on man, he's a national treasure.
I guess if you truly think spirituality has no merit whatsoever, then it's no loss. But come on, this guy is based as heck.
The Dalai Lama is the person who would be least impacted by being assassinated - he comes back on a regular basis after all.
More options
Context Copy link
Like, I'd be mildly peeved, since he seems like a chill dude who just wants to vibe and build clocks, but can't say I'm particularly attached to him!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link