Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The Current Transcript for November 19, 2019

Host: Laura Lynch

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Hong Kong, the Fragrant Harbour is sliding into an abyss of chaos. The future of Hong Kong, if such situation continues, would be unmaginable dreadful.

LAURA LYNCH: In fact, it is the smell of tear gas filling the air of Hong Kong as the standoff between police and protesters at a university campus continues. China's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Liu Xiaoming, is making it clear China has the will and the power to stop the violence its own way. We are starting in Hong Kong today. After that.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I've been through it and through it and through it over and over and over again and nothing never happened.

LL: Prince Andrew, said to be the queen's favourite child, is being excoriated after this interview with the BBC, which was described in the ever so colourful British media as toe curling and a car crash. He denied allegations he had sex with a teenager and tried to explain his friendship with the convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. Is this just the latest in yet another annus horribilis for the royal family? I'm Laura Lynch and this is The Current.

Concerns growing that Hong Kong protests could become even more violent

Guests: Antony Dapiran, Wenran Jiang

SOUNDCLIP

[Sounds from clashes in Hong Kong]

LL: After more than two days of clashes between Hong Kong police and anti-government protesters, more than 200 people have been injured and hundreds arrested. About 100 protesters remain holed up inside the besieged campus at the school's Polytechnic University. Antony Dapiran is a writer and lawyer in Hong Kong and the author of City of Protest: A Recent History of Dissent in Hong Kong. He's also writing a book about the current protests. He was on the campus on Sunday and he joins me now. Hello.

ANTONY DAPIRAN: Hello.

LL: I'm wondering what you can remember what stands out to you from what you saw at the polytechnic on Sunday?

ANTONY DAPIRAN: It was a really remarkable scene. I arrived quite early on Sunday morning, shortly after the police assault had begun on the campus. The students and other protesters holed up inside were incredibly organized. They had all sorts of equipment and supplies. They would have had fortified their positions. They'd set up various centres like first aid centres. The gymnasium had been turned into a large dormitory for people to rest, but even set up a media centre with one area with a big screen showing livestream of the events going on outside and facilities for the media to use. And then they had this incredible canteen set up where people had donated supplies to them. They were using the cafeteria kitchens to cook the food. The food was of a really high quality that was sort of pork chops and sausages and vegetables and fried rice. And some of the students even joked that the quality of the food that day was better than where the canteen was operating normally. And then also very large amounts of supplies such as first aid supplies, snacks, instant noodles, biscuits, energy bars and water and all sorts of things. So it was incredibly well, well set up a very intense mood inside, but also very determined mood and not without its moments of humour. To be honest, it was a very strong spirit of solidarity. And they seemed to be, while obviously facing a very serious and determined assault from the police, were retaining the sort of sense of humour you'd expect of a bunch of young people.

LL: What time did you leave the scene?

ANTONY DAPIRAN: I left the scene about 9:30 Sunday night. So it was just as the police were preparing to close the perimeter. So it was shortly before things started to become more desperate and things did become desperate. Through the course of the day, so early in the morning, things were fairly cheerful as the day wore on and the police assault became more intense, I think people became a little more determined. Later in the evening when the police had it appeared the police were approaching along the pedestrian bridges connected to the campus and there were several large fires that were set on those pedestrian bridges. Then there was sort of started to be the sense that things were getting dangerous.

LL: Okay so now we're in a situation where there are said to be approximately 100 protesters left inside the campus. Do you have any sense of what their state of mind is right now?

ANTONY DAPIRAN: I have been speaking to people who are in touch with friends inside. Many of them, I understand are now getting cut off from communication. There are spots where they don't have access to charges for their mobile phones, for example. So their phones are steadily running out of batteries. And some have people have lost communication with people on the inside. The concerning thing is that among some of the people who are left inside are some students and protesters who have said that they are willing to give up their lives for this cause. That's obviously a mindset that is extremely concerning and one that hopefully they don't feel obliged to realize, of course. It would be a terrible thing. But I think many of the others are I'm sure, quite afraid and getting desperate. They're probably also running out of food. Well, when I was there on Sunday that there were vast numbers of food supplies and water and first aid supplies and so on. But there were also probably over a thousand people there. And in the course of a couple of days, I'm sure most of those supplies are now being exhausted.

LL: Antony, Carrie Lam, Hong Kong's leader, spoke just just several hours ago. I want to play an excerpt of what she had to say. Just have a listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: We are extremely worried about a dangerous situation in the campus. So the two important principles that I have laid out for the police operation. The first is, of course, to have a peaceful resolution. As far as possible. The reason I cannot give you an absolute guarantee is because the situation is changing. For argument's sake, if we were suddenly seeing some very major life threatening incidents on the campus, the police are on the reactive side, then the police have to take the necessary action to prevent any tragedies from happening in Hong Kong.

LL: I'm wondering what your reaction to that is given given your own sense that some of these protesters say they're prepared to die?

ANTONY DAPIRAN: Yeah, I mean, my reaction to that really is that it's Carrie Lam's government and her police force that have forced the students and protesters into this position. You know, there wasn't a need for this siege to be conducted in the way that it was there. There isn't a need for the police to be attempting to storm the campus in the way that they are. And there really has been very minimal negotiation from Sunday morning onwards. It's been very much the use of a blunt force instrument, this police force attacking the protesters, holed up in there and trying to force them out. And that's exactly the kind of conflict situation where you do lead to the kinds of tragedies that carry Lambert was referring to. So if any such tragedies do occur, I'm afraid the fault will lie entirely with the government and the police for not managing this whole situation better.

LL: But we know that some protesters have thrown Molotov cocktails and shot arrows at the police. They've burned parts of the campus. Do they risk losing the support of the of the general public in Hong Kong with those kinds of actions?

ANTONY DAPIRAN: Look, it's an interesting dynamic between the more hardline protesters and their publics, their supporters in the broader public. Certainly there are people out there who have felt alienated by some of the actions of the more extreme protesters and they will have lost some support. But still, the overwhelming sentiment seems to be up. while we don't agree with some of the things that the protests have done, we don't agree with the violence, we dn't agree with the property damage, we still agree with the underlying sentiment. That's the thing that I'm hearing most often. And as a result, the protesters are losing huge amounts of support. I do have the sense that people made up their minds which side they were on a long time ago and it's going to take something very extreme for them to change their minds. And even the kind of violent acts we've seen so far are not sufficient to cause those minds to change.

LL: You've written about Hong Kong as a city of protest. How does this compare then?

ANTONY DAPIRAN: Well, this is certainly the pinnacle of modern the modern era of political protests in Hong Kong. The only time in Hong Kong's recent history that had has had had anything comparable was back in 1967. During the Cultural Revolution in the mainland, there were very wide and long lasting anti imperialist riots here in Hong Kong, actually far more violent or disruptive than what we've seen this year. Back in 1967, a feature that thank goodness we haven't seen this year was an extensive terrorist bombing campaign on the streets of Hong Kong. And actually, in 1967, it was that terrorist bombing campaign that caused those protesters back then to lose their public support. So this time around, the Hong Kong protesters haven't targeted human life. And I think that would be really the straw that the others, the bottom line that people would not be willing to accept is if the protesters were taking lives. That's something that I think would definitely cause it to lose support.

LL: So it is now night-time in Hong Kong. Where do you see this going?

ANTONY DAPIRAN: Many of the more moderates have already been leaving in the course of this afternoon. And I think it's inevitable that all will leave tonight as they are exhausted, hungry, frightened, needing first aid and other medical attention. I think we're going to get down to very small numbers, which hopefully the police will then be able to manage peacefully, if not late tonight and during the course of tomorrow. Today was actually relatively quiet in Hong Kong compared to the last week, which had been fairly chaotic week. And I believe that many of the protesters have their eyes on this Sunday's upcoming district council election. That a sense that they don't want they want to get things calm so that the government doesn't have an excuse to cancel those elections that are supposed to happen this weekend.

LL: There's obviously a lot at stake. Antony, thank you.

ANTONY DAPIRAN: Thank you.

LL: Antony Dapiran is a writer and lawyer in Hong Kong. Wenran Jiang is an adjunct professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, but he's based in Edmonton and joins us from our studio there. Hello.

WENRAN JIANG: Hi, good morning.

LL: What do you make the account we just heard from Antony Dapiran?

WENRAN JIANG: Well, Antony obviously a Hong Kong-based writer who has written on the protest, you know, movements in Hong Kong, and he is on the ground. But I'm surprised to hear that he was at the universe university Polytechnic on Sunday evening and yet he did not say anything about the violent outbursts of, you know, gasoline bombs. Hundreds of them literally tossed towards the police, burnt of police vehicles and the burning of the bridge leading to the mainland. These are the things you brought it up, but these were pretty violent situations. I think the general public would not like that and it has crossed the line. Therefore, whether depending on where you sit, clearly, Antony is sympathetic to the protesters. So am I for the basic aspirations of their democratic demands. But at some point when you in a society lacking a Hong Kong, based on law and order and has a reputation for it to have this kind of violent outburst, I think most Hong Kongers and international society look at it with a reasonable mind and saying this is out of control. Even the student leaders themselves have acknowledged they have no idea what this will lead to.

LL: Right. The editor of Global Times, which is a Chinese state run newspaper, has gone as far to call for police to use live ammunition against the protesters, calling them terrorists. What do you think of that?

WENRAN JIANG: Well, the editor of Global Times, tweeted about it, talked about it. Of course his rationale is basically saying in those similar parallel situations happening say in New York City or in Toronto or in London, this group of people would be labelled as terrorists and the SWAT teams will come in. Live ammunitions will be used. And that's I think his base to say in any situations around the world, you know, the vast democracies, this will not be tolerated the police will respond with. But my personally I personally think that will really making things worse. I, in fact, think and observe that the Hong Kong police are more restrained and continue to be restrained, are using all the other tools, teargas. They use a lot of them, rubber bullets. These are anti-riot gears rather than lethal weapons. I don't think, I don't agree with that kind of approach. Even he himself advocated that that will escalate things. But as far as I know, I came, you know, before I came, I saw the latest news out of Hong Kong. There are only several dozen of them. Hardcore protesters cut themselves inside the compass of Polytechnic. I think the end is coming for those, many surrendered, many being arrested and we will need more time to figure out what exactly is happening on campus, whether the crackdown was excessive, but the situation is clearly very volatile.

LL: Now, we know we are just days ahead of these district council elections that are supposed to be happening. Do you sense that the protests will ramp up or possibly quiet down in an effort to make sure these elections go ahead?

WENRAN JIANG: I believe the situation is still volatile. It's hard if the police clear out the polytechnic and then the arrest is done, probably there will be some order restored. But others say it may generate a weekend more of protests. But I don't think it's a good idea because many of the protest candidates, you know, demonstrators filed to join the local election at the weekend, and the international society clearly called for it not to be cancelled. And so, therefore, I think it's reasonable even on the protesters' side. They should allow the local election to be orderly going ahead rather than calling more disruptions at the weekend.

LL: What is at stake in these elections?

WENRAN JIANG: Well, the stake is clearly very high because it becomes some kind of referendum of whatever the government is doing. And Carrie Lam herself has a very low public opinion. You know, our rating at the moment, you know, it's always ironic. Now she's coming out calling for all the right things to do. And yet she doesn't have a lot of credibility. And so we want to observe over the next few days on how the general public is going to react to this. But let's make it very clear to our audience that some people say there's a slow motion of cameras going on. Let's stand with Hong Kong. We need to ask what kind of Hong Kong, the Law Society of Hong Kong, the Bar Association of Hong Kong, these are not the puppet of Beijing. They have come very clearly coming out, calling the current level of a small group of violent protests and their means totally unacceptable and need to be stopped. And so, therefore, I think the general public would be on the side of trying to clean things up, trying to calm things down, probably returning to more peaceful means if they want to protest more, rather than lining with these violent protesters.

LL: Now, Chinese officials are blaming foreign interference for the protests, and they say it threatens the one government, two systems model. What do you think of Beijing's position?

WENRAN JIANG: The Beijing position so far in my opinion and from what out of Beijing is very hard line, very rigid, because to them, Hong Kong is part of China and they perceive this to be agitated by foreign forces, by small agitators and even pro independence elements that they think they cannot tolerate. That being said, I don't think that's flexible enough or accommodating enough to the Hong Kong general public. But at the same time, they have not ruled out using force, but I don't see them doing a rolling in the tanks or sending in the troops. Of course, they sent some dozens of troops with shovels rather than rifles into the street near their barricade to clean up the debris. But there is no indication that Beijing is going to come in because Hong Kong is Hong Kong. The police is still as chaotic as stressful it is, the police are still in charge. I don't see Beijing sensing the few things are out of control. Therefore, I would perceive that they continue to hold a fairly hard line and at the same time not to make moves of their own and depending on the local authorities to sort things out.

LL: There are an estimated 300,000 Canadians in Hong Kong and yesterday, Global Affairs Canada said it's monitoring the situation and wants to see restraint. Is there anything more countries like Canada could be doing to encourage de-escalation?

WENRAN JIANG: Oh, absolutely. There are lot more things to do. You know, earlier, a couple of months ago, Canada actually joined EU in a very tense situation back then, calling for not using violence, primarily being interpreted at least by Chinese authorities warning China and they rebuttled us. Now with the current situation, earlier in the month, the British government, which is observing this much more closer than us here in Canada, come out clearly saying the current small amount, small group of radical protesters and what they're doing are not acceptable and need to be stopped. We have 300,000 Canadian passport holders in Hong Kong and Canada needs to come out. I know there's new cabinet coming, but we need to come out to say this kind of violence need to be stopped. It cannot be tolerated, but they need to be stopped and resolved through peaceful means. We cannot.

LL: Violence on the side of the protesters or on the side of police?

WENRAN JIANG: No, we need to send out signal that the current small group of protesters in violent means should not be acceptable. And on the police side, on the authorities side, we need to persuade and call for calm and not to use excessive force because the current situation is volatile. But we cannot go there and to say somehow we're all in solidarity with demonstrators because the demonstrators of several months ago through peaceful means are no longer the same. The smaller group of radical protesters today using total violence means trying to achieve whatever goals they cannot even identify themselves anymore.

LL: I have a feeling we will be speaking again, but thank you for your appearing today.

WENRAN JIANG: Well thank you very much for having me.

LL: Wenran Jiang is an adjunct professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia. He was in our Edmonton studio. The CBC News is next. Then.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Well I think what we saw in that interview was really a prince unravelling in lots of ways.

VOICE 2: It was a very uncomfortable watch. He was ill prepared for it.

VOICE 3: Not a hint of remorse, not a hint of the fact that it was a ridiculous friendship to get into and to continue. And no thought indeed, for any of the victims either.

VOICE 4: Biggest PR disaster for the royal family in decades. Make no mistake.

VOICE 2: It was huge. This is very serious.

VOICE 4: I don't see how Andrew can ever recover from this.

VOICE 3: I actually at one point got the newspaper and put it over my eyes because I was so appalled by it.

LL: You hear there British talk shows are filled with commentary about Prince Andrew's attempt to explain away his friendship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and deal with accusations he had sex with a minor. Royal watchers think he actually threw the royals into the biggest crisis in a decade. More in our next half hour. I'm Laura Lynch. You're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Prince Andrew's interview about Epstein showed a 'cringe-inducing' lack of empathy, says royal commentator

Guests: Angela Levin, Dickie Arbiter

LL: Hello, I'm Laura Lynch, and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

LL: Still to come, Smudge is a grumpy looking cat from Ottawa. A picture of him sitting at a table in front of a salad with a bit of a sneer on his face is completing a lot of online jokes at the moment. We'll look into the world of viral memes in half an hour. But first, a royal attempt to clear the air.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: If you're a man, it is a positive act to have sex with somebody. You have to, have to take some sort of positive action.

LL: It's a curious way to start a denial, but that's what Prince Andrew said this weekend in an interview with the BBC. The interview was supposed to explain his ties to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and answer the allegation that he'd had sex with an underage girl at the home of an Epstein friend in 2001.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: It's very difficult to try and forget positive action and I do not remember anything. I've been through it and through it and through it over and over and over again and no, nothing. Never happened.

LL: If the interview was supposed to calm the waters, it's done the opposite. It's been called a public relations disaster or car crash. Andrew is being criticized for, among other things, failing to once mention Jeffrey Epstein's victims. Asked if he had guilt or shame over the friendship, this was his answer.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Do I regret that he has quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming? Yes,.

VOICE 2: Unbecoming? He was a sex offender.

VOICE 1: Yeah. I'm sorry, I'm being polite and in the sense that he was a sex offender. The problem was the fact that once he had been convicted.

VOICE 2: You used to.

VOICE 1: I stayed with him. That's the bit that as it were, I kick myself for on a daily basis, because it was not something that was becoming of menber of our family. And we try and uphold the highest standards and practices and I let the side down. It's as simple as that.

LL: It might not be that simple because there's a growing chorus of people calling for him to resign from public life. I'm joined by two people to talk about what this all means for the royal family and its future. Angela Levin is a journalist and a royal biographer. Her most recent book is Harry: Conversations with the Prince. Dickie Arbiter is a royal commentator and a former palace spokesman. They're both in London, England. Hello.

DICKIE ARBITER: Hello.

ANGELA LEVIN: Hello.

LL: Angela Levin, let's start with you. What did you think when you saw the interview?

ANGELA LEVIN: I couldn't believe how cringe making it was, in fact, at some point I kept putting my hand over my eyes thinking, I cannot believe that he is saying this. The arrogance for lack of understanding. It was just too awful.

LL: Dickie Arbiter, what was going through your mind as you watched?

DICKIE ARBITER: It was excruciatingly awful. And I wondered why he was doing it. Who would put him up to do it? Who had advised him to do it? And came to the conclusion he didn't seek advice and if he did, the advice came from within his own office and not the communications office at Buckingham Palace, which is the place to go to if you are unsure about an interview. It should never have happened.

LL: You worked inside there and the queen has now, there is a statement issued in her name saying she was, "aware of the interview." What does that mean?

DICKIE ARBITER: Aware of the interview to my mind, to my interpretation is that she was told by Andrew that he was doing the interview and that's it. He was just telling her as a matter of courtesy that he was doing the interview, but I don't think she had any idea of what the content was or what the subject was.

LL: Angela Levin what did the interviewer say to you about privilege in the royal family?

ANGELA LEVIN: Well, I think one has to be fair and say that some of the younger royals behave in a slightly different way. I mean, I think he is exceptional in that. He was very spoiled as a child. His his his mother's favourite child. He was absolutely praised all the time. Sometimes when it's not necessary and he has grown up with an attitude that, you know, he is always right and he is fine and he doesn't have to listen to anyone at all.

LL: How does that interview? Oh go ahead Dickie.

DICKIE ARBITER: Sorry yeah. Interesting Angela said that he was praised all the time and he doesn't listen. When he doesn't listen to anybody, he was praised all the time because he craved praise, because he always wanted to know how have I done, am I OK? And even he carries it through today. He is arrogant. He does his own thing. And he wants to be upfront. He wants to be recognized. He wants to be liked. He wants to do everything. And he's not allowed to do everything. He calls himself a senior member of the royal family. Not sure what that means, actually. He is the queen's second son. One of her four children, but it doesn't make him senior. It makes him number eight in line of its succession. And if William and Harry have another child each, then it puts him down to number 10. So hardly senior.

LL: But I just want you both to listen now to a comment made by Mandu Reid. She's the leader of the UK Women's Equality Party. Listen to what she says about Prince Andrew's interview.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: It demonstrates very clearly that we still got a mountain to climb. It demonstrates that we're really at base camp when it comes to trying to tackle this problem of sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape, violence against women and girls. And a man like, you know, Prince Andrew, his nonchalant about this issue, his disregard for the victim and his statement that he doesn't regret his friendship with a man who perpetrated this horrendous crime is a really important, I think, exposé of how much work there is to be done.

LL: Angela Levin, what do you make of what Mandu Reid says?

ANGELA LEVIN: Well, I've got two things to say about that. One is one has to say that actually we've had in the UK appalling crimes against women in Rotherham in the north, which went over 30 years with very little publicity. And because they didn't want to bring the people who'd done this is in organized crime into the public eye. I mean, it's nowhere near like this. My view is that he is a very ignorant, stupid man and he doesn't realise that the world has moved on. I don't think the others are necessarily the same as that. I think when he, one of the terrible crimes coming out of that was that not once did he say how terrible it was that this has happened to these girls. You know, he could have said me as a father, I've got two wonderful girls. I've always made sure I protected them and I would have been horrified if this has happened to them. You know, there's nothing about that. It was all about talking about himself as being too honourable and very endearing and all that sort of stuff. For somebody who is an articulate and cannot speak out, they need a script that they virtually learn by heart with points that they must raise and points that they shouldn't say, like how wonderful I am, because it's not about him. Number one should have been that and it didn't cross his mind. And it was all about why did you stay there for four days when you just went out to a stop being a friendship. Well it was convenient. What do you mean by convenient? He doesn't have to go shopping across the road. He doesn't need a tube station nearby. He's a member of the royal family with loads of money. You know, it was isuch a nonsense and so terrible. But I think we must make sure we don't use that as a way that nobody respects women now. I don't believe that.

LL: Well, I just want to ask Dickie. Yesterday, Gloria Allred, who is a lawyer representing women who say Jeffrey Epstein abused them, call for Prince Andrew to talk to the FBI about what he knows. How likely do you think that is to happen?

DICKIE ARBITER: I believe it's got to be likely. It's got to be likely that he's got to talk to the litigants, lawyers as well, because having exposed himself on the British media and it's gone global. So the world has seen the interview. He has to talk to both the investigators and those defending. And if he doesn't, then it does put a question mark over his guilt. I just want to get back to your previous question. Yes, there have been tremendous abuses against women in the United Kingdom. There was very little investigation in the Midlands and up north over what was going on for decades, because there was a feeling within authorities that it might have been perceived as being racist. Well, it just so happened that the perpetrators were of Asian origin. So there's nothing racist about that.

LL: Just for the sake of our listeners, the Rotherham issue is about a group of people who were abusing girls. It wasn't women. They were girls who were being abused and raped.

DICKIE ARBITER: They were girls. And a lot of them were underage girls, but what we must be very careful not to do is to tar the royal family just because there's one bad egg.

ANGELA LEVIN: Quite right.

LL: But when it comes to Prince Andrew though, who is defending him right now? Anyone?

ANGELA LEVIN: Well, his mother is defending him. The queen is defending him. I mean when this first rode, a few about six or eight weeks ago, she made sure that she drove with him to church, the nearest church. And they were smiling and laughing eachother in the back seat. That was deliberately done.

DICKIE ARBITER: Angela I'm going to put.

ANGELA LEVIN: And they went yesterday together.

LL: Dickie, just hang on. Hang on Dickie. Go ahead Angela. Finish your thought.

ANGELA LEVIN: She does support him and she she loves him and she's often tried to help him. When Prince Charles in 2012, I believe, tried to cut down on the numbers of royals who were on the balcony just to make it more efficient and things. And he was very upset and he ran to his mother or maybe walked in and said, you know, this is I can't do this. This is terrible. What about me and my girls, you know? And she does fight his corner. I think that puts Prince Charles in a very difficult position.

LL: Dickie?

DICKIE ARBITER: Yeah. I want to pick you up here Angel. First of all, when the queen and Andrew went to church together, you got to remember the queen, yes, she's head of state, both the United Kingdom and Canada. She's also the mother. And she is going to defend her son in public. What she does behind closed doors, you don't know. I don't know. But she's probably ripping him apart. As far as riding, Andrew doesn't ride. The queen went riding yesterday with a groom. She always rides with a groom.

LL: I've misread a caption then, yeah.

DICKIE ARBITER: Yeah. So let's look at this. She always rides with the groom. And the only other members of the family she rides with, occasionally Prince Edward, occasionally the Countess of Wessex. But Andrew doesn't ride.

LL: Thank you for the clarification now. Thank you. Prince Andrew's interview comes not long after another dramatic royal interview. This is the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, talking to ITV last month during a trip to South Africa.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: It's hard. I don't think anybody can understand that. But in all fairness, I had no idea. Which probably sounds difficult to understand here, but when I first met my now husband, my friends were really happy because I was so happy, but my British friends said to me, I'm sure he's great, but you shouldn't do it because the British tabloids will destroy your life. And I very naively, I'm American, we don't have that there. What are you talking about? That doesn't make any sense. I'm not in tabloids. I didn't get it. So yeah, it's been complicated.

LL: Now Angela I want to come back to you because you've been writing about Prince. Obviously, this is a very different interview from Prince Andrew's, but remind us why it caused a stir.

ANGELA LEVIN: It caused a stir because that particular comment that she made at the end of her and Harry's tour of South Africa was incredibly badly timed. They had had a marvellous tour. The press were absolutely behind them. There was as much warmth as they were before the royal wedding. And she'd been to Angola and she'd seen one of the most poorest countries in the world. She'd seen children who'd had their limbs blown off because there are still minefields. She saw girls who are learning how to box to try and cut down on the rape that that goes on there over young girls. And she it was all about pity me. And I think the public find that very difficult to take one when you're talking in the most poverty stricken country in the world and two when you do have an enormous privilege. Myself, I was terribly upset that she said she felt that she was existing, not living, and she was so unhappy. And Harry looked absolutely devastated. And I thought to myself, how sad that a newlywed couple who have everything going for them really, I know it's hard in the royal family, but they've got so much privilege, can't actually help each other. I thought that was tragic.

LL: Dickie Arbiter?

DICKIE ARBITER: I think there were a couple of things here. Firstly, Angela, I must pull you up. Meghan didn't go to Angola. She stayed in Cape Town and then from Cape Town she went to Johannesburg.

ANGELA LEVIN: But they had been in Angola. She saw what was going on there.

DICKIE ARBITER: No Meghan did not go to Angola. Harry went to Angola.

ANGELA LEVIN: I know she didn't go, but she did see what was going on there. I know that for a fact.

DICKIE ARBITER: But the other issue is that when you compare Harry and Meghan to William and Catherine, William and Catherine had a relationship for eight years before they got married. Harry and Meghan was whirlwind and she wasn't prepared. She was American. Nothing wrong with that. But she was somebody coming out of one environment into a completely strange environment, not knowing the British way of life and not knowing how the royal family works and operates. And to suddenly find yourself in a situation where you can't speak your mind, you can't say things in public that you have previously said before and previously been able to do, she found it probably very handicapping. And when she said was nobody asked me how I feel, well, the royals don't do that.

LL: They don't talk about feelings you mean?

DICKIE ARBITER: They don't talk, you know, it's the queen's mantra. Never complain, never explain. And, you know, you just get on with it. You know, she said she tried to maintain a stiff upper lip, but she's found that very difficult.

ANGELA LEVIN: Can I just say, when I was talking to Prince Harry at Kensington Palace on our own, he told me he'd spent hours telling her how it would be. Now, whether that went in one ear and out the other, nobody knows. But he said he really wanted to know and understand what was going to face her. The reality of someone telling you this might well be different, but it's not that she went in without any knowledge of what the difficulties were because he's seen that with other girlfriends and experienced that, they dropped him because they couldn't cope with being in the spotlight.

DICKIE ARBITER: Yes. Being in the spotlight under the British media, but then to say that there are no tabloids in America. America is riddled with tabloids. I mean, take one, for example, The National Enquirer. No, she wasn't prepared. Harry might have spoken to her, might have explained it.

ANGELA LEVIN: Well he did.

DICKIE ARBITER: But over a period of years doesn't compensate for William and Catherine. Eight years. And Catherine had time to get used to it. And living in this country, you know how and you see how the British tabloids and newspapers operate. In America or in Canada you're far removed to the way the press operate in this country.

LL: I jwant to play another bit of tape from Mandu Reid, the leader of the Women's Equality Party. Listen to this, please.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: There are those who unfortunately and I don't use this word lightly, but see her as a pollutant. See her as somebody who is kind of sullying the royal family and they take any opportunity to berate her. And so in a way, I think Meghan Markle's presence on the scene exposes some of the divisions that are so prevalent in society and also exposes some of the misogyny and racism that British people like to sort of politely pretend isn't a mainstay of how our society works and operates.

LL: Angela Levin, how is misogyny, racism factoring into how Meghan Markle's being targeted?

ANGELA LEVIN: Obviously, there must be some racism, but I see it as only tiny. I think what people don't like is when she tells people that they mustn't fly and must cut right down on it and then goes on private jets. Whether it's paid for by someone else or not, the carbon footprint is virtually the same. I think she doesn't want to learn the British sort of protocol, when you're a member of the royal family. I think she's very. she brings an air of fresh air to the royals, and she's self-made, but she really won't listen. She thinks she can.

LL: Is there something wrong with that?

ANGELA LEVIN: I think there is when you're in the royal family out somewhere representing her Majesty the Queen. I think you don't talk about politics. You don't talk about various things that put you in a difficult position. And I think she has had a lot to learn, but I don't know that she really wants to learn it, to be honest.

LL: Dickie Arbiter, I'm wondering in the context of all of this, do you think the royal family needs to do more to modernize?

DICKIE ARBITER: The royal family's been modernizing for a thousand years. And for example, if you look at the queen, the way she operates today at age 93 and the way she operated shortly after the coronation, two different modus operandi. She speaks differently. She moves differently. She communicates differently. So the royal family is modernizing and it always has modernized. I'm not sure what people mean by modernizing. There are some groups here that you should be a bicycling monarchy. Well, the monarchies in Europe don't bicycle Yes, they go out occasionally riding bikes. Charles and Diana went riding bikes on the isles when they were on holiday, but they don't go riding round the streets on bicycles. So that's a bit of a nonsense. But the monarchy has modernized. The monarchy, the queen on walkabout, she communicates. Look at Charles and Camilla in New Zealand. They are communicating with the community. And to say that's not modern, then I don't know what is.

ANGELA LEVIN: Can I just add one thing there?

DICKIE ARBITER: Yeah sure.

ANGELA LEVIN: That Prince Charles had to marry a virgin who was from the aristocracy. That's one big reason why Diana was OK. But he, alongside the queen, decided that they didn't want to do that with Harry and William, and they couldn't marry the women of their choice. Now it might not sound much today, but it really is a huge thing that the marriage could be about love and companionship and mutual feelings and not necessarily about whether you come from a good family or you've had sex before marriage. I think that's an enormous example of the modernizing of the royal family.

LL: Angela just to stay with you for one minute. The UK is is in turmoil over Brexit. There's a looming election. How are the royals viewing viewed in the midst of all of this upheaval?

ANGELA LEVIN: I think they'd be grateful to have a day off actually. I mean, the papers are absolutely full of it or the television absolutely full of it. They didn't have enough reporters to go around with all the people who were going for the election and Brexit. And I think they're all sick and tired of it after three years. And I don't mean it's a happy escapism, but actually just focusing on something different I think this was a good idea.

LL: Dickie?

DICKIE ARBITER: A recent poll, put the royal family on the crest of the wave and the queen on top of it. It's doing good work. It is respected in the country. Yes, you get one bad egg and it sullies the rest of them, but I think.

LL: Who exactly is the bad egg then?

DICKIE ARBITER: Well, Andrew's the nad egg, isn't he?

LL: OK, just asking.

DICKIE ARBITER: Isn't he whom we've been talking about? But so we mustn't sort of label the rest of the royal family just because of his misdeeds. So the monarchy is riding high. It's riding so high that the prime minister of New Zealand, the New Zealand government, invited Charles and Camilla. There was no need to invite them, but they wanted them out there. Why did they want them out there? Because they are popular.

ANGELA LEVIN: In 199 the queen had what she called her annus horribilis, when she had lots of very upsetting things about Fergie and Andrew splitting and Princess Anne divorcing from her husband and there was a fire at Windsor and Diana had spoken on the television about the book, very revealing, and she was very unhappy with that year. And people are saying here in the papers today that this is the second annus horribilis. But, you know, they recovered from the first one. She recovered from the first one. And I hope and have no doubt, really that that they will recover from this too. We are very keen on the royals in this country.

DICKIE ARBITER: I was in the press office during that annus horribilis and taking much of the flak from journalists. And it started off the queen's fortieth anniversary of her accession. Should have been a good year. Charles and Diana are in India, Diana talking to Andrew Morton indirectly on the book. Andrew and Fergie separating. Fergie having her toes sucked in the south of France while on holiday with her financial adviser. The Windsor fire, as you rightly say. Ended on a good note though, because Anne had remarried again. Married in Scotland because the Church of England wouldn't recognise a divorcee. The Church of Scotland didn't mind.

LL: Dickie, so you've been there. If you had the ear of the queen right now. What advice would you give her?

DICKIE ARBITER: I would, the advice I would give is control the family. But she's not able to control the family because they are adults. Andrew is going to be 60 next year. Charles is 71. Anne is almost 70. She's going to be 70 next year. You can't control adults, but you can and you have to as a mother, you have to be collegiate and you've got to show a face because your son is in trouble. But behind closed doors, you've got to crack the whip. Unfortunately, Prince Philip, who gave up public duties is really based most of the time at Sandringham. He's reasonably fit. He has his good days and bad days. But if he were around, he certainly would have cracked the whip. At the moment, it's left to the queen. Hopefully Prince Charles will take up the whip and do something about it when he gets back.

LL: So just briefly then Dickie, another annus horribilis?

DICKIE ARBITER: No, not another annus horribilis. It's just Andrew. The rest of them are doing a terrific job.

LL: Alright. Thank you to both of you for your thoughts on this.

ANGELA LEVIN: Thank you.

DICKIE ARBITER: Thank you.

LL: Angela Levin is a journalist and royal biographer. Her most recent book is Harry: Conversations with the Prince. Dickie Arbiter is a royal commentator and a former palace spokesman. They are both in London, England. Coming up in our next half hour, what do drones and cat memes have in common? Well, actually nothing, except we're going to be talking about both of them. Drones because they are changing the way wars are fought. And cat memes, well there is something incredibly relatable about Smudge, the Ottawa Cat, who's taking the world of memes by storm. I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

[Music]

Back To Top »

Meet Smudge, the Canadian star of the internet’s most weirdly relatable meme

Guests: Julie Crysler

LL: I'm Laura Lynch, and you're listening to The Current. If you spend any time on social media, you've probably seen a strange little meme float by your feed. It's two incongruous images slapped together. On the left, a blonde woman having the kind of meltdown you only see on reality TV and on the right, a photo of an ordinary white cat with a smug expression on his face, sitting at a table, in front of a plate of salad. Over the past few months it's become one of the Internet's biggest running jokes. The Current's producer, Julie Chrysler, has been looking into the explosion of women yelling at cat memes online.

SOUNDCLIP

JULIE CRYSLER: Let's get this out of the way. The reason I'm telling you about this is the cat is Canadian.

MIRANDA STILLABOWER: Yeah, he's adorable. He's just chillin here right now.

JULIE CRYSLER: His name is Smudge and his person is Miranda Stillabower. She's 24-years-old and lives in Ottawa.

MIRANDA STILLABOWER: So that's my biggest accomplishment at this point is being Smudge's owner.

JULIE CRYSLER: There's no question smudges cute, pure white and lots of personality. There are photos of him playing in the sink, knocking broccoli off a table and looking all embarrassed in his Halloween pumpkin costume. And then there's the photo that made him Internet famous.

MIRANDA STILLABOWER: He eats at the table. So that's how it happens. He took someone's seat and that's why the salad was there.

JULIE CRYSLER: But what really makes the photo is the expression on Smudge's face. He looks kind of smug, maybe a little snarky, and he looks like he's talking.

MIRANDA STILLABOWER: I still to this day don't know why he was making that face and we'll never know. Well, he looks like he hates everything, which is kind of the opposite of exactly who I think he is. He's like very loving and cuddly and everything, but in the picture, he literally looks like he hates the whole world.

JULIE CRYSLER: Miranda posted the photo and pretty soon she started seeing it around the Internet. But then sometime last spring, something happened. Someone combined it with this.

[Scene from Real Housewives of Beverly Hills]

JULIE CRYSLER: And then the meme just went crazy. Sometimes the internet is hard to understand. Who would think to go back to a 2011 scene from The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills and pair it with a weird cat photo? But now one of the most popular meme formats out there is Taylor Armstrong arguing with a cat.

[Taylor Armstrong sketch]

GRETCHEN MCCULLOCH: I think what makes a meme like this, you know, woman yelling at can catch on, is that it creates a sort of versatile emotional template, but you can slot in a bunch of different circumstances into.

JULIE CRYSLER: That's Gretchen McCulloch, Internet linguist and author of Because Internet.

GRETCHEN MCCULLOCH: I think that a lot of means catch on because they express a very specific emotion that can be applied to a lot of different circumstances and often applying in a sort of dramatic or exaggerated sense to a set of circumstances. So if one of them is, you know, me and the other one is my deadlines. And then, you know, all of us that had the experience of feeling like we're not catching up on our deadlines or feeling like our deadlines are yelling at us. I guess the me is the cat here and the deadlines are yelling at me.

JULIE CRYSLER: Taylor Armstrong has embraced the meme and even retweeted a few examples. But she's also said the scene was from a really dark period in her life and that she was truly worried for her safety. At that point, she was married to an abusive husband and she said she's feeling much better now. And according to media scholar Samira Rabjavi, that points to a real dilemma.

SAMIRA RABJAVI: We forget that there are real material lives on the other side of the images that we're recycling and sharing.

JULIE CRYSLER: Think about the number of photos and videos of you that are out in the world. Think about the photos of your kids. One day some rando on the internet could grab one, slap a caption on it and turned into a running joke and who knows where it would end?

SAMIRA RABJAVI: There was a meme called Irma Gerd and it was a young girl, kind of like a stereotypically nerdy looking girl holding a bunch of Goosebumps books, and it was probably almost 20 years ago and it went viral and people loved sharing it and it spread everywhere. And later she wrote an article like that was me and that was me at my most self-conscious and insecure, right? And it could be any of us. It really could be. And there are actually consequences to that.

JULIE CRYSLER: On one level, memes seemed to be just making fun of strangers on the Internet, but without getting too heady about it, there can also be some serious emotional content. People share photos of Irma Gerd girl because they relate to that nerdy feeling of enthusiasm, or they share the woman yelling at cat meme because they relate to Taylor Armstrong screaming through tears.

SAMIRA RABJAVI: A lot of people don't know how to express frustration and anger in a healthy, productive way. Right? So this is a way through those difficult feelings and emotions and it's also a way to to be part of something, to be part of something bigger than yourselves and to relate to other people and you feel this sense of solidarity, like I know that feeling of frustration. Right? Like I can relate to that.

JULIE CRYSLER: Or let's be realistic, probably they relate to that jerky cat who's always got the snarky answer.

[Music]

LL: That was The Current's producer, Julie Crysler. We'll post some examples of the woman yelling at cat meme on our Twitter feed @TheCurrentCBC. I'm Laura Lynch and you are listening to The Current.

Back To Top »

Canada could 'draw the line' on the use of killer drones in warfare, says disarmament expert

Guests: Wim Zwijnenburg

SOUNDCLIP

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: They're cheap. They have no risk and they're very more easy to operate by anyone who is able to get their hands on them.

LL: That's Wim Zwijnenburg. He's with the Dutch peace organization, Pax. And these days, a lot of his work is focussed on drones and the way they're changing conflict.

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: You see this change of tactics. People trying to scout each other positions, drop small bombs with drones or use, they fly a small drone, so people start firing at the drone. But behind the small drone is a big drone and that big drone is trying to find out where the fire from the enemy is coming from so they can locate them and tart using artillery strikes to target the enemy.

LL: Boy, it's just endless. It's one versus the other versus the other.

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: Exactly. So that's said that's kind of interesting to see, like how these possibilities would having eyes and cameras everywhere and ability to strike back is now changing the dynamic in warfare?

LL: We're not just talking about big predator drones, the kind the United States has used for years for surveillance and targeted killings in its so-called war on terror. Drones of all sizes are getting cheaper and proliferating in conflict zones like Yemen, where this attack from above on officials at a military parade happened in January.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound of drone attack in Yemen]

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: So what we're listening to there was the sound of a drone, which is an Iranian based model which was built by the Houthis, but likely support from Iranian engineers, which has been used over the last two, three years for attacks by the Houthis against the Saudis who have been waging a war in Yemen, also supported by the US. And the Houthis have been building this kind of drones to strike back against the Saudi targets. So these drones, the smaller types of drones have a range of 200, 250 kilometres, but Houthis also have been building drones with a range of 1500 kilometres.

LL: So when you're looking at conflicts across the Middle East today, that's that's one kind of drone. What other kinds of drones are we seeing?

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: Basically a whole range from drones, which cost up to, you know, hundred million to drones that cost you a hundred bucks like you can buy online or you can buy at your local hardware store. And they've been increasingly being used for military purposes.

LL: But they're not only used to drop bombs. These drones can be used for surveillance too, right? And help pinpoint targets in a way that could reduce casualties in conflicts?

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: Drones, because they can stay up in the air for a long period. Like some of them, over one or two days, they can collect of love information on the battlefield. With more information, you can make better informed decisions and prevent civilian casualties. So I think there's all the benefits to using drones in regular warfare. But we also seeing the other side is that there have been used to lots outside regular battlefields in secret counterterrorist counterterrorist operations. And there have been also a lot of civilian casualties. But we it's very difficult to track down these kind of drone users because states would be using them in that kind of way, particularly United States, but also Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Turkey. They have not been very forthcoming how to use them.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sounds of warfare in Syria]

LL: That's the sound of Turkish fighters advancing into Syrian territory that have been held by the Kurds last month. So what kind of role have drones played there?

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: So both, like on all sides in the Syrian conflict, especially in northern Syria, drones have been long been used for surveillance. When the Turkish incursion in northern Syria started, they have been used for strikes against targets and currently there daily, almost daily drone strikes from Turkey against Syrian democratic forces. And there also have been a lot of reports of civilian casualties taking place there. But also the U.S. apparently has been witnessing war crimes conducted by the Turkish back so-called Syrian National Army. It's a group of militias from supported by Turkey to fight the Kurds. And apparently drones have been no, it's a sort of eyes in the sky from both sides who've been both documenting war crimes, but also involved in targeting militant groups.

LL: And apparently, as The Wall Street Journal is reporting, those surveillance drones that the Americans are monitoring appeared to show the killings of civilians and possible war crimes.

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: Exactly. And it's a sort of disturbing trend where we can see everything, but we failed to act. One, what we see. So in this case, documentation is taking place with drones because of their ability to stay around and hover in these areas and and see what is happening on camera, but it doesn't result into preventing war crimes or in the change of policy to counter these kind of groups.

SOUNDCLIP

[Clip from drone attack in Mosul, Iraq]

LL: This is sound from Mosul in 2017. Iraqi special forces trying to shoot down a commercial drone that ISIS had modified to drop her name. These are the kind of drones that anyone in Canada can go out to a store today and buy. What kind of impact are they having in the Middle East?

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: So it definitely, according to the Iraqi military, it was more of a nuisance because, you know, there is a small kind of explosive. But still you have to instead of just only to focus on the ground, you also have to scan the sky to make sure there's not something coming up from behind you or dropping a bomb on top of you. So that may not be very effective in terms of creating a lot of casualties, but it did push them a bit back. And you had to define different ways to do your your movements from the enemy. So I knelt at the peak of their operations like they have I think they were shooting down 20, 30 drones on the day in the Mosul operation. So ISIS has started up training schools for students. They set up companies all over the world, like 30 show companies where the whole gang of people were involved in getting those commercial drones from Europe, from China, from the U.S. into ISIS held territory. So I think that's where we see an increased interest from non armed groups and using drones and this will likely only increase in the near future.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sounds from drone warfare in Libya]

LL: Libya is the scene of another intractable conflict. What's happening with drones there today?

w: So it's an interesting case in Libya because you have those two major groups fighting. So the government of National Accord and they're fighting against the the Lebanese national army by General Haftar and Haftar is being supported by United Arab Emirates. And they have been using Chinese drones flying from our air bases in the east of Libya and likely also from Egypt. And the other side, we have got the U.N. backed government where Turkey has provided armed drones, which are flying from Tripoli and Misrata and then there's still also the U.S. who has been involved with their drones, which are flying from New York and striking against the Islamics, the so-called Islamic State, which is also still operating inside Libya. So everyone in Libya wants to get their hands on drones and use them, but it's still unclear who's actually responsible if things go wrong.

LL: It sounds as though it's turned it into a pretty intractable conflict.

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: It shows also deaths. States don't want to have boots on the ground. So the UAE doesn't necessarily want to send soldiers to fight that war. Turkey doesn't want to send its soldiers to fight a war and the U.S. and want to get body bags back from U.S. soldiers. So instead, drones have become a replacement to show that they're still engaged but not willing to take any risk. I think that's the one of the deadly dynamics of drone warfare. You know that you don't win wars by just killing people and I think that's that's a big concern from our perspective, from a peace organization, that drones are becoming a substitute to sort of tempting technology, which makes it look like an easy fix to just be involved, but not actually working for a solution or what's the underlying problem with these kind of conflicts.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sounds from drone attack in Saudi Arabia]

LL: Those explosions are part of the aftermath of a drone attack in Saudi Arabia this past September on a major oil refinery. Now that attack shook world markets. What do we know about what happened?

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: Well, what's very likely this was an attack carried out by Iran. It has all the hallmarks of Iranian drones, the remnants that were found near these facilities bear does seem similarities over drones, which were shown in Iranian parades, and they were able to fly under the radar being undetected. It was likely Iran sending a message to Saudi Arabia that we know where to hit you where it hurts, which is their financial, which is their oil supply.

LL: So just how is the proliferation and weaponization of drones changing the balance of power in the Middle East?

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: Well, that's an interesting and also relevant question when it comes to drone warfare, because with drone capabilities, you can easily conduct operations with some kind of secrecy is more difficult to trace back who has conducted that strike. You're able to create leverage. So in the case with the with these have done, what Iran is trying to do with Israel as well, is to set up a drone for us and let your enemy know that you can strike or you start. It's in deep inside enemy territories with drones where before you can do that, because you need to have access either with people or with machines on the ground to strike. To strike. But with drones, you can get sort of force projection and sending a message like we can hit you everywhere. And it also challenges the way to respond to that. So, for example, in Israel, there was an incursion of an Iranian drone flying into Israeli territory.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sounds from shotting of drone in Israel]

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: Israel fully retaliated with a massive air strike on a Syrian airbase. And this kind of forced escalation, that's going to be problematic and we saw it already happening in the Gulf where Iran shot down this U.S. drone.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: I would imagine it was a general or somebody that made a mistake in shooting that drone down.

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: How are we gonna deal with that if there's no person aboard.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: There was no man in it.

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: So no one was luckily killed.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: It would have made a big difference. Let me tell you. It would have made a big, big difference.

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: So how do you respond to that if your machines are shut down? Doesn't respond, does it? Is it fair to respond with a full strike that kills people, as was initially suggested by Trump advisers, but then the pulled out in the last moment? Or should we find different ways to de-escalate. I think that's something we have to figure out in these sort of international context, how drones, the use of lethal force is changing this kind of power dynamics.

LL: How far off are fully automated military drones that can attack without a human pulling the trigger?

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: Well, I think that's now currently being debated how acceptable that is. Because that's, of course, a next step. You can develop two smaller drones, which are more autonomous. And if you can fly swarms of them in a set path or they use their own internal artificial dungeons to to identify targets and to select them and target them. That's something that militaries are interested into develop, but that's also why there is a big international campaign against killer robots to stop this kind of developments becauset that's really scary because there the machine that takes over the decision making of targeting from a human being. Because all these drones we're talking about right now are still operated or by a human in the loop. But then because of this counter technology, you'll see more automation and autonomy in these kind of drones. And that's a scary development. We definitely need to stop.

LL: You talk about swarming drones, hundreds of moving together. Describe that for me and tell me whether it's something that could actually happen, because it sounds like science fiction to me.

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: Yeah, well, it's those kind of swarms already tested by the U.S. military, by other militaries as well. Like how can you have a coordinated attack of hundreds, sometimes thousands of small drones, overwhelm enemy defences and strike a target? That's something we're currently seeing. So, for example, the Iranian flying 17 drones at the same time. That's that's already a novelty when it comes to drone warfare in the U.S. They tested something we'd like to own and drones at the same time were able to identify targets and make a decision if they want to attack the target or not.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: We have talked about remotely piloted vehicles of many different types, and we know that's going to be part of the defence mix moving forward for most countries, if not all countries. However, whenever we take the decisions to use them in new or different ways, there will be fulsome discussions about that.

LL: That was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaking in 2017. And this fall, we've learned that the Department of National Defence's remotely piloted aircraft system project has entered the next phase. It's talking to two drone manufacturers about acquiring UAVs. These. So what kind of approach should middle powers like Canada and Holland take when they're acquiring drones?

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: I think there's again, Canada is probably the same situation as the Netherlands where, you know, there's a debate over the role of drones in the army and there's debate in parliament, because I think there's definitely an added value of having more information being available to military commanders on situational awareness on the battlefield. But our concern is that there is like the future of warfare is less likely to be state against state warfare, but more state against armed groups or non-state actors and more counterterrorism operations. And that's the kind of murky warfare where drones have become de tool for states to use. And there has hardly been any pushback against U.S. practice. And that's why we think states like India and the Netherlands could come out to say, OK. These are military drones. This is why we want to use them. These are the added value they bring for us, for our troops. But this is also where we draw the line. And this is also where we think drones should not be used and drones. We should have a debate over how drones are shaping warfare and counterterrorism operations and also help identify what are the legal boundaries of the battlefields and know push for that to ensure that other states like the U.S. don't stretch international legal frameworks and use it for illegal targeted killing campaigns. Because if you don't push back, then who's going to stop anyone else? Who's going to do that? Who's going to stop Turkey saying, yeah, we're just targeting these people? We're like, for example, Turkey has now stated they want to kill General Masloom, the leader of the Syrian Democratic Forces who's fighting against ISIS and against the other groups currently in northern Syria. And they intended to say, well, we want to kill him because according to us, he's a terrorist. What prevents them from using a drone in a secret clandestine killing operation?

LL: I want to talk about the the impact and the effect on civilians who are living in conflict zones where drones are being used. I remember reporting from Pakistan where drones are being used by the Obama Obama administration to target terrorists in the northwestern frontier areas. And of course civilians were killed and also the sounds, just the continuing sounds of the drones overhead were having a psychological impact on them. I'm wondering if you've looked into that at all?

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: So basically those kind of areas like Pakistan and these areas in Yemen where al-Qaeda is active, it's not a war zone. So people go along with their everyday life and there are these terrorist groups who are moving in between them, but you can see if it was a terrorist or not and there is no fighting going on. But in the meantime, all those drones were there 24/7, seven days a week loitering over these area. You could hear them and people were afraid because you don't know if the guy is standing next to you or woman, but mostly, guys is associated with a terrorist group and is part of an operation that the U.S. was targeting this person. And U.S. has shown that they accept the civilian casualties as part of their clandestine warfare. So people are continuously afraid that they would be a victim of that. And that had a severe impact on people where children were afraid to play outside when it was a blue sky, because if it's a blue sky, it means drones are flying over, because if there was cloud cover, it was more difficult for drones to operate. So that's the kind of impact drones also can have.

LL: Thank you so much for your time and your insight on this subject.

WIM ZWIJNENBURG: Yeah, you're welcome. I'm very glad and happy to share this with you.

LL: Wim Zwijnenburg is a humanitarian disarmament project leader at the Dutch Peace Organization, Pax. That is our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for Q. Today the winner of the Scotiabank Giller Prize, Ian Williams joins Tom Power for his first in-depth interview after winning Canada's most talked about literary award. Now earlier, we were talking about the latest trouble facing the British royal family. Prince Andrew didn't do himself any favours with his attempt to explain his friendship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a TV interview. That wasn't the only British royal drama on the telly this weekend, though. A new season of The Crown dropped on Netflix. Of course, The Crown is still back in the 60s and 70s in Season 3, while the actual royal family is creating drama in what must be, what about season 87? So you could be forgiven for mixing up the two. So we leave you with the trailer for The Crown, the TV drama that is. I'm Laura Lynch. Thanks for listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Trailer for The Crown]

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Nov 19. 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This