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 2022

The Current Transcript for November 17, 2022

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

[Noise]

MATT GALLOWAY: What's that? That's the sound of an arctic glacier in Alaska and it's melting. The message coming out of the U.N. climate conference in Egypt is that the world needs to act now to slow these signs of a changing climate. Some scientists think they have an idea; refreeze the melting ice in 30 minutes, the ambitious science of climate repair, and whether it will actually help address the climate crisis or just create an excuse to pollute more. Also this morning.

SOUNDCLIP

Revolutionary caucuses, you have this intensely loyal ruling elite. These are kind of life and death situations where basically defection equals treason.

MG: The eyes of the world are on Iran, where protesters are openly defying the ruling regime. China, too, where president seen this week publicly berating Justin Trudeau could now be leader for life. The Professor Lukin Wei has studied how autocratic leaders stay in power in an hour. The barriers to success for those protesting in the streets and why, in the face of popular uprisings, leaders have kept democracy at bay. We start, though, with the big role of two cities in Canada's journey to the men's World Cup of soccer. The players have high hopes. So do the folks who got them there. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Canada gets set for its first men’s World Cup appearance since 1986

Guests: Jeff Clarke, Martin Harvey

SOUNDCLIP

MG: It is a typical morning at Tonino's Pizzeria and Panini in the city of Brampton, Ontario.

DANNY: 20 something right?

MG: Dough tossed in the air, pasta cooking in the restaurant's open kitchen, but tucked away in the back corner, a piece of hometown history.

DANNY: Right next to us here is Jonathan Osorio's, a rookie jersey. He came from Uruguay. He came in the off season and he tried out for an open camp for the Toronto FC and made the team and obviously turned into a major role player who he is today. And then from then he went to the Canadian national team and that's it. This is his first jersey that he gave me.

MG: That's Danny Caloiero, owner of two Nino's. For 20 years, his restaurant has been sponsoring the Brampton Youth Soccer Club, and that is how he met Jonathan Osorio. When Jonathan was first starting out.

DANNY: They would come after games or practises and they would come here and eat. The parents would come. And I just met him as a young kid, ten, 11 years old, and he was very nervous. And you could see it in him. But he was spoken about at the time saying, you know, this kid's got talent. He's good. You know, he's different from the other players. He's more hungry. I guess they were all right at the time.

MG: Over the years, the two became close friends. Now, Jonathan Osorio is one of several players from Brampton, set to represent Canada at the World Cup in Doha, Qatar. More than a quarter of Team Canada's roster hails from that Ontario city. Danny Calero says Brampton is known for Olympians and basketball players, but soccer has never received as much attention until now.

DANNY: Soccer is is a big hype right now and especially when they're qualifying. You saw the City of Brampton because so many people can relate to the players families as in my neighbour, I went to school with them or even if they played soccer with John then when he was like nine years old. It feels to everybody like they have some some kind of relationship with him.

MG: On Wednesday, Team Canada makes its debut at the 2022 Men's World Cup for the first time since 1986. Danny Caloiero, of course, will be watching it all unfold live at the restaurant, as you'd expect, as will soccer fanatics right across this country. Hopes are high that Team Canada's performance in Doha will help grow the sport here at home. Jeff Clarke is a former Canadian national team player, also played for the MLS's team, the Vancouver Whitecaps. He's now the technical director and director of operations for Surrey United. Martin Harvey is the former coach of Brampton players Atiba Hutchinson and Junior Hoilett. He's now based at the Etobicoke Youth Soccer Club. Good morning to you both.

JEFF CLARKE: Good morning.

MARTIN HARVEY: Thank you.

MG: Martin, are you excited?

MARTIN HARVEY: Oh, too excited.

MG: Too excited for a lot of people. This has been a moment, a long time coming. What does it mean? We'll talk about the cities where these players come from. But Martin, what does this mean, this moment.

MARTIN HARVEY: What it means? It's validation. It's obtaining credibility. It is so important for us at this World Cup to qualify and not only to qualify will qualify the top we having 2026 coming up, but we really wanted to qualify in a normal and natural way. And we have done that. And with that comes excitement and a future that we can only dream.

MG: We'll talk about 2026 when Canada hosts the World Cup in a moment. Jeff, from your perspective, what does this moment mean?

JEFF CLARKE: Yeah, I agree with what Martin says. I think it's great awareness for the world to to know that, you know, Canada, soccer's on the rise. And over the last couple of decades, we've put together some good line ups and just not got it done. So getting across the line, getting our team into the the the dance is it's going to bode well for future inspiration of players. And I know from my own standpoint, I feel like a proud parent right now and as an ex-player and sort of I'd call myself a pioneer in, in, in the system. It's really fruits of a lot of labour and a lot of years and a lot of turmoil in the CSA. So it's nice to see things turn around and see these guys get to this this fantastic position.

MG: Martin, what is going on in Brampton? More than a quarter of Team Canada's players are from Brampton, including two who you've coached. So what's what makes this city such a powerhouse?

MARTIN HARVEY: It has been going on for four decades. Maybe the rest of the country and the rest of the province did not notice. Bolson Terry, all the other guys, long before that, I remember Atiba Hutchinson and Junior Hollett whom I have contact with, Atiba Hutchinson and Junior [unintelligilbe]. I would consider them to be players who had talent and who end up being trained and in training beats talent any time unless talent is trained. And in Brampton, Brampton has that natural talent because it is a culture, it is a parents, it's coaches, they are well supported. There's a lot of unstructured play organised by the players and that have been there. The schools are very supportive. The principals, the teachers recess soccer, they live and breathe that and they have been doing that for years. And it seems like we are finally noticing because they do have the majority of the players on the national team.

MG: When you met Atiba and Junior, did you know that they were good? Did you know that at some point in time, if you know the stars lined up, they would make their way to the World Cup?

MARTIN HARVEY: Absolutely.

MG: Absolutely.

MARTIN HARVEY: Atiba was, not only Atiba, but a lot of, you know, remember kids like Nasser, Bodi, Ashton, Paul, they were all good. But Atiba was a talent. He was younger. He was he was one year younger than the others at the time. And I met him because there was a gentleman by the name of Winston Ten. I consider him to suddenly a hero off of youth football in Brampton. He approached me in this summer. I'm looking for a coach. I am looking for someone to guide or to to add some more to my team. And I said, Why would you? Why do you want that? And when I finally saw the players play in Ontario Cup Championship and I watched the performance, they were ready. Atiba Hutchinson, Junior Hollett, he was one year younger. He was not selected on that regional team for Peel and I think at the time Ontario Soccer did have a good network to make sure that all players of a certain talent should be added and should be afforded and give them the permission to play right. Although he was one year younger, he was as good as and better than the 13 year old. So whether or not they were ready. Yes, they were ready. And that's the talent I'm talking about that happened to be trained. But their parents are the ones that I really think Dalton and David, those two sacrifice a lot. And they were well supported by the Brampton community.

MG: Jeff It's not just Brampton, obviously a couple of players who come from the Surrey soccer community. What's going on in your town?

JEFF CLARKE: Well, it sounds like there's a lot of parallels. Surrey is known as a melting pot of all the cultures, and it's a very dense area here in Greater Vancouver. And both Liam and Joel, as much as Martin said, you know, they they showed talent from a young age as well. If I was to add to some of the great comments he's made there, I think I would put the passion and just the love of the game that both those players showed from a young age. And it was exemplified by, you know, I know as a director, I would I would get to the park early at 2:00 and, you know, they would be out on the field juggling, listening to their music, just shooting, kicking a ball against a wall. And at the end of the weekend, at 7:00, you're heading home. And there's the kid again. And he just he they could not get enough touches of the ball. I consider them very old school to today's generation that they want to play and they want to get home on video games. But. Yeah, Liam and Joel, they would be out there just with solitary by themselves or with their dads, their, their parents, their older siblings. It didn't matter. They just dragged him down to the field and they just wanted to play soccer for the love of the game. So I think it's a really nice message to to all the the thousands of kids that play soccer today. You don't always have to be the MVP in a in a cup final. You just have to love the sport. You have to believe in yourself, and you just have to get out there. And and it just repetition goes a long way. As to Martin says, with the training, I think there was a lot of solitary mental training and focus that was created by the hours and days of time that they put into to their trade.

MG: What is the fact that Major League Soccer has teams in cities across this country? What does that mean in terms of the development of Canada's national teams, Jeff? Because you played on one of those teams, the Vancouver Whitecaps.

JEFF CLARKE: Yeah. No, I think it's a, it was a step in the right direction from a global perspective. And just young kids and just watching local teams is very important. It shows them a goal and an attainable goal. You don't have to get on a plane and fly 10 hours to and speak a different language. So I think the the introduction of the MLS clubs in Canada was key. My ex Team-Mate Duane Dallas area that came near from Brampton, you know, he came through the MLS system and did exceptionally well both for himself, but also showcasing what Canadians could do in a league like that. So he he paved the way for a lot of others to come behind them. And I think now the emergence of the Canadian Premier League is another huge step to us rounding out the system and giving more young Canadians an opportunity to experience professional level soccer, get the training, get the tutelage, get the the apprenticeship, really, that it takes to be a professional.

MG: The reality, though, Martin, is that several players on this team did have to leave this country to develop their skills. Jonathan Osorio apparently looking at going to England, of course. Alphonso Daves is in Germany, junior in England, Atibo Hutchison in Turkey. What does Canada need to do to make sure that those players can stay here, that they don't need to go abroad, but that we have our own system that will develop them to the highest level.

MARTIN HARVEY: The highest level we met. We need to make it accessible. We need to have that that structure, that framework, that pathway. Yes, we do have a pathway in Canada. However, it is not that inclusive soccer, you know, for immigrant communities or some parts of Ontario, it is very difficult to get in because you need a vehicle to drive people there. And, you know, Atiba and and Junior they didn't end up becoming world class players because there was a system in Ontario for them to go through. Their parents took it upon themselves to create that pathway. We need these players here. We need to increase capacity and we need to improve our identification. Yes, we have the KPL and we have League One and other community clubs. And we also must open up the pathway to late entry, this idea that we have to select players at a very young age and not accommodating other athletes, the players later on, the later developers is a mistake. And we need to find all of the talent we need to harness and train the talent within our backyard. And all systems must be aligned and we must be also we must be inclusive. We must be inclusive.

MG: We're talking about this tournament. But how important is that to get those ducks in a row to be aligned, as you say, in advance of 2000, 2026? The next World Cup will be held in North America. Canada will be hosting some of those games.

MARTIN HARVEY: What we have. We have talent. This team is a very talented team. But we have to think about the next World Cup and the and future World Cups. So we are doing good work. The Kenyan Soccer Association, they have started they've started doing some good work. John Huntsman is a great leader. And Jason De Vos do have some ideas and is working hardwith our head coach in [unintelligible], right. However, we need if you want to know how do we get the ducks lined up? We need to open up the system. We need diversity and we need inclusion. Everyone stopped closing the doors too early. And players, not because they're not in the system. If a player is not in the system. Right. Find them. Find them and let them create that opportunity for them to be involved. However, let's have players leaving for Europe and other places only because that there's a higher level of soccer there. But our players who are thriving, players who are developing players, should stay home and develop. They shouldn't. The first option should not be Europe.

MG: And that's not just the men's league. I mean, we're still waiting for a women's league to be created here. And so that would create if there's that system here for everyone, that would allow everybody to to stay here in this country. Let's talk about the team that's going to be playing in this tournament when you take a look at them. Jeff, what should we be watching for? What excites you about the men's team that will be representing Canada starting next week?

JEFF CLARKE: From my standpoint, I think the the team spirit is something that I had never seen before. I've been in a lot of locker rooms. And you it's it's almost palpable and so obvious how great a job John's done to cultivate the culture of the team. So I think as fans, when you're watching the game, I think you're going to see 11 players playing for each other the entire match. And it won't be just, you know, the back four playing together or the wingers and the striker playing together. I think you can just see just a great camaraderie and a great level of professionalism, but also a great level of pride for their country. And that just makes me so happy. And it takes me back to some really good memories in my career when I had similar examples and experiences. So I think that's number one. For me.

MG: It means a lot. Pride in the country. In part because in years past, players who perhaps could play for another country if they had family ties to a different nation might be tempted to go and play somewhere else. These are players who want to play for Canada.

JEFF CLARKE: Absolutely. And I think John really tipped the scales there. And I know John personally. His son played at Surrey United as well. So I can't say enough great things about him as a leader and as a as a speaker. He's very, very he's great at public speaking and he he's great at speaking with the young kids. He's great speaking to adults. So he's it's going to pay dividends, having a guy like that. Sell your country, sell your sport and your country. And you're starting to see a lot of top players, like you say, who have options and they're choosing Canada. And that should make everybody just so proud as a Canadian citizen.

MG: MARTIN Team Canada plays its first match on Wednesday against Belgium. Very, very strong team. Only three games to determine their future at the World Cup. What is success, do you think, for this team? What would determine a successful tournament for Team Canada?

MARTIN HARVEY: Success. Win a game. Hold our own against Belgium. The first game. Stay organised. Get some points and move to the next round. Do you think they.

MG: Do you think they have the capacity to surprise people? People have called Team Canada a bit of a surprise package in some ways.

MARTIN HARVEY: They are. We are. And I want to go back to to Jeff Clarke, his comments about John Hodgman and his leadership. We consider John Hodgman to be the X Factor. John Hodgman like talking about the X factors in his teams and his programming, but he is not realising that he is the X factor. There's no other individual we have had in Canada who have had the leadership skills, the communication skills and the drive, the motivation. He's a great leader in the sense that whatever is needed, he puts it together. And that team spirit and that pride that Jeff Clarke talk about, these players would be playing for each other. They re playing to prove something. And that's a validation they started off with because we have something to prove. But yes, it would be difficult. Let's not fool ourselves. It would be difficult, you know, to get the results that we desire. However, good performance, you know. Let's start with that. Let's start with good performance as whole. Our own an anything can happen, a draw and a win. You'd be surprised what four points can do.

MG: Jeff, just a couple of seconds left. What do you think? How does how does Canada do?

JEFF CLARKE: Oh, I, I agree with Martin. I'm not a quantitative guy. I think they stick to what's got them there. I think they they play the way they can. It makes everybody so proud and it's so nice to watch. And if they can nick a win or get a couple of draws, they're already playing with the host's money. And I think as Canadian soccer leaders, we have to keep a philosophy here. That's a young squad. There is a vision for the next four years. And this is a generational thing that they're inspiring. So that's my view on it.

MG: We'll be watching. Good to talk to you both. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. Jeff Clarke, former member of the men's national team, current technical director and director of operations for Surrey United. Martin Harvey, former coach of Brampton Players Atiba Hutchison and Junior Hollett. They are on this year's World Cup squad, the men's first match Wednesday against Belgium at the World Cup. Your CBC News is next. And then.

SOUNDCLIP

What we are talking about in refreezing the Arctic is the need to buy time.

MG: As the UN climate conference winds down, we'll find out how scientists are trying to buy time and stall the effects of a warming climate, starting with trying to save the Arctic glaciers by refreezing the ice. That's coming up in six minutes. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current. Stay with us.

The ambitious science of climate repair — and whether it will actually help address the climate crisis

Guests: Cian Sherwin , Sir David King, Duncan McLaren

MG: Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, why authoritarian governments installed during a revolution are the hardest to topple. That's coming up in just under 30 minutes. But first, scientists who are trying to turn back the clock on climate change.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

We are in the fight of our lives and we are losing. Greenhouse gas emissions keep growing, global temperatures keep rising and our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible.

MG: The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The tipping points he's talking about include the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice. The Arctic is warming at four times the rate of the rest of the planet. So this has prompted some scientists to take climate action one step further. Instead of just cutting emissions, they say, we need to think of ways to reverse the damage. This is called climate repair. Cian Sherwin is CEO of Real Ice. It's a company in Wales working on a plan to refreeze Arctic sea ice. Cian Hello.

CIAN SHERWIN: Hi, Matt. How are you doing?

MG: I'm well. You have what is known as a re icing machine. Can you tell me about this machine and how it would go about re freezing sea ice?

CIAN SHERWIN: Sure. So we are pledging to rephrase an Arctic bank within four years. And within that, we've got two questions that are asking Is it technically possible to do this using renewable sources? And can we create an economic model that is commercially viable so that we can get this technology to scale? The technology itself is fairly simple. We're hoping to power our machines using renewable energy, and it will essentially be taking seawater from below the ice and placing it on top of the ice to create multiyear ice over the course of a winter period.

MG: So how does it go about doing that? How are you taking water from below the ice and then creating new ice.

CIAN SHERWIN: Via a fairly simple pumping system, which I'm sure you're familiar with in Canada, where diesel pumps are currently making platforms, bridges, areas that are used for recreational use. And we're essentially taking technology that exists today and coupling it with the innovations that are being made in renewable energy.

MG: How much ice could you create?

CIAN SHERWIN: So these are some of the questions that we are looking to answer as we go forward to our development over the next four years. We are looking for help, ask for help to start making a difference at scale, and we need to partner with large companies that can help us do that. We're kind of a part of a small group which are looking to do something proactive about climate change. And even if it doesn't solve the problem, it will help others to learn how to do it. And it hopefully will inspire others to take up the mantle to join us and try to do climate action.

MG: In the best case scenario, though, I mean, how much ice would you be able to create? Give me a sense if this machine is working, what you would be left with at the end of the process?

CIAN SHERWIN: Yes. So within obviously our goals are to refreeze arctic bay within four years. And locally we could see this ice blasting through summer months to the following winter. And this would just give stability to communities that call this place home. So we could enable hunting pathways to continue to stay where they are, to build communities through the foundations of their local ecosystem. And we see vast majority of Arctic communities are quite literally losing the foundations of their homes. And we're hoping to be a part of something that helps us and helps to prevent and preserve the Arctic communities and their way of life.

MG: You saw this firsthand when you were here in Canada earlier this year, Europe in Iqaluit. What sort of what sort of response did you get there and what did you learn about how pressing the need is to address the melting of sea ice?

CIAN SHERWIN: Absolutely. So we went and met with Mayor Kenney Bell and we spoke about some of the technology that we were bringing. It seemed to be met with a lot of welcome. Unfortunately, at the time when we went up there, it was still in the middle of COVID. So I made it very difficult to reach out to some council leaders, which we really would have loved to speak to. And we are continuing to reach out and kind of make the right approach to some of the local council leaders, particularly from Arctic communities, that we needed to include in the development of this project.

MG: And is it possible? I think people listening would think that this is some sort of fantastical idea. From your perspective, is this technically possible?

CIAN SHERWIN: I believe so. I think I wouldn't be here speaking to you today. So, yeah, no, the technology is proven on a small scale and we say even for large oil rigs where they create massive ice platforms. So it's really scaling up the same technology that we already see in existence today, and I believe that is possible.

MG: Do you worry that in creating something like this, it just encourages people perhaps to keep emitting greenhouse gases? They think, well, gee, don't worry about it because we can just fix it later on down the road. We'll just refreeze the ice. Not to worry about that.

CIAN SHERWIN: Absolutely not. I do get that. We are met with that question quite often. I think it's really important in the messaging that we put out that it's our solution needs to come as part of a wider behavioural change from humanity. This needs to be part of a message that says we're inspiring others to make a change and to look around us and see the environment for what it is and what we should be protecting it. It's not. Yeah. So I got to I'll get to passionate, I'll start getting emotional. But I know that it's something that needs to happen and it needs to happen as part of a wider behavioural change from humanity. It's just a paper.

MG: Just finally, where does that emotion come from for you? Why are you so connected to this?

CIAN SHERWIN: So something that I've always grown up with is animals. And I don't think you can get into the whole world without realising that without the environment, none of that will exist. And the appreciation that I've grown up with. Through my own interest in reptiles and amphibians, to be specific and as well as not just my general love for the outdoors, I can't, I can't ignore what's what's changing in front of my eyes.

MG: Cian I'm glad to talk to you about this. Thank you very much.

CIAN SHERWIN: Thank you very much. It's been a pleasure.

MG: Cian Sherwin is the CEO of Real Ice, and we reached him in Bangor, Wales. One of the leading voices championing the idea of climate repair is Sir David King. He has served as the UK government's chief scientific adviser and as its Special Representative for climate change. He's now director of the Centre for Climate Repair at Cambridge University. Sir David King, hello to you.

SIR DAVID KING: Hello.

MG: What do you make of this idea that Keen Chairman has been talking about to refreeze Arctic sea ice? Is something like this possible?

SIR DAVID KING: Yes. And we are also working on refreezing the Arctic sea ice. And I think it's not only possible, but I think it's absolutely crucial if we are going to have a manageable future for humanity. And I say this because as you've already said, Arctic sea ice is melting very rapidly. The ice on Greenland is now melting irreversibly. But the second thing is that in the permafrost regions around the Arctic Sea and at the North Pole, we do have a vast amount of methane trapped in that permafrost. And up in northern Siberia, we know that today methane is being explosively released. And this is really a problem because if, for example, all of the methane there was to be emitted over a 20 year period, we would see a global temperature rise of around 5 to 8 degrees centigrade, which we're looking at a real potential disaster for humanity.

MG: We've seen that melting of the permafrost and the release of methane as well in Canada, in the northern parts of this country as well. How far along - I mean, Cian talked a little bit about his project. How far along is the research on ways to refreeze the Arctic?

SIR DAVID KING: Well, so we're really I'm going to say that we must have as many people engaged in this as possible. And I'm delighted that Keith is doing what he is doing. As a matter of fact, here in Cambridge, in the engineering department, we're creating ice volcanoes on top of the ice by pumping seawater up above the ice. But our technique that we are really focussed on is marine cloud brightening, where we will use biomimicry to create white cloud cover over the oceans around the North Pole region during the Polar Summer months. What we need to do is create vessels in the ocean that are capable of pumping tiny droplets of water into the air. They get lifted by the warm sea, creating a warm current of air above it, up above the the atmosphere. And as they go up, they lose their water and you're left with a tiny crystal of salt. But these crystals, as they slowly come down into the atmosphere, pick up water again, and bingo, you have a white cloud. Now, if we can do that, along with information from the meteorological offices telling us which way the wind is blowing, we would just activate those vessels that are going to carry clouds over the Arctic Ocean itself.

MG: This sounds fascinating. What is the strategy that you're looking at that creates artificial whale poop, if I can put it that way?

SIR DAVID KING: Oh, well, that's a completely alternative process.

MG: Yes. But also interesting.

SIR DAVID KING: Oh, yes. So the idea here is, based on our fairly recent understanding of the functions of the baby whales in the in the deep oceans of the world to been in whales. Well, the whales that were sought after because of their blubber and now, for example, the biggest of all is down to something like 1% of the population. It used to be three or 400 years ago. These big whales have a lot of blubber because they spend a lot of time, three to 500 metres below the sea level where the water is very cold. And what they are doing down there is feeding. But when they come up for air, they also come up to Defaecate. And as they do this, they're bringing fertile material. And just think of a farmer putting fertiliser on his land, fertile material up into the surface area of the ocean where the sun shines onto that area. And within a few days you have an enormous green patch of phytoplankton, which is the initial foodstuff of fish larvae. So what we believe we might be able to do by creating artificial whale poo, we might be able to recreate the baseline whale populations of the oceans. And then after maybe 40 years of doing this, we can leave them to be the biological pump.

MG: You hinted at this, but why do we need to be exploring these sorts of what some people might think of as far out ideas now?

SIR DAVID KING: Well, these ideas are not far out in the sense that, to be honest, Matt, we need them. If I just explain the artificial whale fertilised idea is, I believe, able to capture between three and 13 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, mainly in the form of carbon dioxide. If you look at where we are now, we are at 500 parts per million of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere clearly too much. We have to reduce that to something like 350 parts per million to create a manageable future for humanity going forward in time. That's our objective with the artificial whale fertiliser idea. And then the idea with refreezing the Arctic is to buy time because if we just let the Arctic continue, we're not really going to be able to create that manageable future.

MG: There are a couple of points of controversy around ideas like this, particularly in indigenous communities. We spoke with Tero Mustonen, who is a climate researcher, heads up a Finnish non-profit called Snow Change, works with indigenous and northern communities across the Arctic. Take a listen to Taro Mustin's concerns.

SOUNDCLIP

In a lot of those kind of attempts. The trouble is that the problem is trying to be solved using the same ways that it was originally created. And that's why to me, a lot of those initiatives are madness. I think the whole atmospheric system and the Arctic is so complex that we wouldn't have technologies, the funding and governance in place to do that. And then any large scale attempt to try something like freezing the Arctic would be coming to a head with the question of governance. Who mandates, who monitors and who chooses?

MG: There are a couple of things there. One is in just calling it madness, what do you make of the concerns around that idea of geoengineering, that in some ways, who are we as human beings to go mucking about with these larger ecological systems?

SIR DAVID KING: Right. So you're talking about geoengineering. By the way, I know Tero Mustonen in very well. He's a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group that I chair. And the geoengineering idea is to put sulphates up into the stratosphere, to reflect sunlight away from the surface of the earth. We are talking about a biomimicry system in which we simply create white clouds. If there was any negative currents from these white clouds. We simply stop producing them. And two weeks later, there is no white cloud cover left. So I don't think these two things are comparable. And with Terra, I agree. I think that the placing of sulphates or any other aerosols into the stratosphere is bound with different challenges. So for example, what are we doing to the ozone layer as we do that? What is going to be the consequences as these aerosols spread around the planet and perhaps manage to switch off the monsoons of West Africa and India? These would be obvious disasters. So we would like to take things a little bit easier by the route that I've just described.

MG: The other issue that he raised was one of governance who decides where this is going to be and what role in particular should indigenous communities play in deciding where these climate repair projects are pursued and how far they might go?

SIR DAVID KING: Yes, and I think the question of governance is critically important and the indigenous communities of the world feel very largely ignored on the question of governance. And I am one of those who is very, very sympathetic to their position. We would certainly want to see the people of the Sami and Intuit populations represented properly. We would also, of course, like to see that the the countries involved would also be represented.

MG: You used the phrase buying us time. Do you worry that it could also buy polluters time, that it could give them the sense that that you can continue on, you know, poisoning the climate because there is a solution that that exists to try to repair that climate.

SIR DAVID KING: Of course, we have to worry about that. And I think the first thing to say is we are emitting today close on 45 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year. And if we continue doing that, then frankly refreezing the Arctic, creating an ocean that will soak up. Carbon dioxide, these projects would be useless in the face of a continued activity of that kind. We are up against an enormous mountain and we've got to use whatever endeavour we can to see that we climb out of it and have a manageable future for humanity.

MG: Sir David, good to speak with you. Thank you very much.

SIR DAVID KING: Thank you very.

MG: Much. Sir David King, director of the Centre for Climate Repair at Cambridge University, previously served as the UK government's chief scientific adviser and its special envoy for climate change. Duncan McLaren is a postdoctoral climate intervention fellow in environmental law and policy at the UCLA School of Law. He studies climate, politics and governance, especially with respect to geoengineering technologies. Duncan, hello to you.

DUNCAN MCLAREN: Hello, Matt. It's a pleasure to be with you.

MG: Great to have you here. Do you share the optimism of King Sherman and Sir David King when it comes to, in some ways, turning the clock back and and helping to repair some of the damage that we have already unleashed on the climate.

DUNCAN MCLAREN: I share their optimism that we can collectively tackle the climate challenge. I believe that we will need to somehow intervene in ways that could be called repair. There. There are definitely things that are broken. I don't have the confidence that either of them have that these technological interventions will be brought to bear in meaningful scale without problems. That do mean that the polluters just get to go on polluting as a result.

MG: Tell me more about that and why you don't share that that confidence that we can lick this problem in some ways through technology.

DUNCAN MCLAREN: So let me take a little example. So I had to look at Kane's website for Real Ice, and it's a very interesting technology. It might give us a chance to to stop that tipping point of of an unfrozen Arctic. But they're proposing to fund it by selling carbon credits that for every tonne of ice they make, they're going to let someone else emit more carbon. That doesn't mean that you're getting a return that just enables the continued emissions. And at the same time, the machines, the material, the renewable energy, maybe that could be deployed to far better ends, eliminating emissions elsewhere. So I think we have to look at this as a system, as a whole and know that there are those interests out there that want to go on polluting. Despite all the threats that climate change imposes on us.

MG: Aside from refreezing the ice be because there are a number of these sorts of climate repair projects from, [unintelligible] carbon capture would be in some ways factored into that pulling carbon out of the sky. What are some of the things that you find most concerning about them?

DUNCAN MCLAREN: The the challenge here, I think, is not so much that the ideas themselves concerning. I'm fairly convinced that we will need to scale up carbon removal techniques, but those things are only going to help us sort of drag back the carbon that humanity has put in the atmosphere by cutting down forests and ploughing up soils or eliminating the whales from the ocean. To take the example of the whale poop project. What they can't do is take out the carbon dioxide that has come up from us burning huge amounts of fossil fuels. And if we are genuinely to repair the climate in some way, then we're going to need some of the more technological approaches that what's called direct capture, for example. But we need to keep that to an absolute minimum. We need to get the emissions down as quickly as possible. And that means not selling credits to people for funding the development of removal technology.

MG: So when we talk about climate repair, then what should we be repairing?

DUNCAN MCLAREN: Well, I think that the crux is to think about what it is that is broken. The modern attitude to the environment is it's just like another thing, a computer or a table or whatever. It's something we can use, we can abuse, we can break or we can repair. And actually, I think that that itself is what is broken, our relationship to the environment, that what we need to restore is a relationship which is much more recognises that we are part of the environment, we are in that place, we belong to it. And you you spoke briefly to the Tero Mustonen and one of the crux of many indigenous values is a sense of they belong to the place rather than the place belonging to them. And that, I think, is is the turn around that we need we need to repair those relationships.

MG: One of the reasons why people are intrigued by these ideas is because it gives you a bit of a glimmer that we're not all doomed, which is something that I think can consume people. So how important is it to be able to feed that hope as well?

DUNCAN MCLAREN: I'm absolutely convinced that we need hope and I'm not sure this is the right route. I find more hope in seeing the way, say, indigenous populations do manage to sustain their lifestyles in the face of all the threats that modern society has put on them. I don't think that visions of climate repair that say, yeah, if we can mobilise enough pounds of dollars and enough energy, we can fix this thing without fixing the view that the earth is ours to control that. That's quite a bleak scenario because all the experience so far of that mindset is that past each problem is another breakdown, one that's even more pervasive and widespread. So I think let's look for the the hope in our humanity, not hope in our technology.

MG: Duncan McLaren, good to speak with you. Thank you very much.

DUNCAN MCLAREN: Thanks for having.

MG: Me. Duncan McLaren is a post-doctoral fellow in environmental law and policy at UCLA. For more on our changing planet and the solutions needed to make a difference, go to cbcnews.ca/climate. Well, coming up, after your regional update, a regime might be unpopular, but that doesn't mean it can't hold on to power. A look at how authoritarians maintain their rule in the face of protests. Coming up in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current. Stick around.

And the violent origins of durable dictatorships and authoritarianism.

Guest: Lucan Way

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. How it started. Iran 1979.

SOUNDCLIP

For Khomeini the flight from Paris to Tehran marked the end of 15 years in exile. The man who from long distance had led the revolution to topple the Shah.

MG: How it's going. Iran. 2022.

SOUNDCLIP

In Tehran, fists and voices raised not against the regime, but in support choreographed by a government stung by mass protests all week. An Army statement promised to confront these enemies, hinting at a crackdown similar to one three years ago that killed hundreds of protesters.

MG: That first report was from NBC News. The last was from CBC News. There's a lot of turmoil and bloodshed in the 43 years between those reports. Despite it all, though, the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran maintains an iron grip on that country. How regimes like the one in Iran manage to survive is the focus of Lucan Way and Steven Levitsky's new book Revolutions and Dictatorship The Violent Origins of Durable Authoritarianism. Lucan Way is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto and he is with me in studio. Looking good morning.

LUCAN WAY: So nice to be here.

MG: I'm glad to have you here. Let's start with a definition revolutionary authoritarianism. What does that mean in the context of a regime?

LUCAN WAY: Basically, it's autocracies that emerge out of social revolution. So unlike other autocrats who mostly come to power via military coup, these are outsiders. You know, Mao Tse-Tung was a librarian assistant. You know, Castro was an aspiring baseball player. These are not people who are part of the old power structure. Right. Second, unlike most dictators who simply want power, revolutionary autocrats, you know, they want power, but they also want to radically transform the world they live in. And they want to change things. And they're willing to make a lot of enemies to do that.

MG: There are a number of countries that you focus on in the book. Want to talk about a couple of them. We've been hearing about Iran. Go back to Iran in 1979 when the Ayatollah flew back into that country. What was happening in Iran then?

LUCAN WAY: So Iran's basically, you know, that was shortly after the shah of Iran, who'd been monarch for a number of decades, had just left Iran, that the state in Iran was collapsing. Khomeini, who is intensely popular in Iran, arrived on that flight. Now, he was very popular, but really he had no tools to run the country other than his celebrity. He was the head of this ramshackle coalition of, you know, nationalists. These were the most adept guys who, you know, most that could fall in a coup in 1953. The sort of the anti the anti-religious communists and the clerical opposition, there was no organisation to speak of it. Khomeini himself hadn't been in the country for 15 years. He didn't even have enough trusted allies to fill out a ruling council created at the time. So he was very weak.

MG: How did he go about then creating power that has maintained, as we say, an iron grip on the country for decades?

LUCAN WAY: Well, he did the opposite of what you expect. You expect someone in such a weak position to sort of make allies, to sort of, you know, try to consolidate his rule. But instead, he literally, in their words, declared war on the world. He, you know, first he supported a seizure of the American embassy. You know, so he alienated the Americans. Then to make things worse, he alienated the Soviet Union by banning the Today Communist Party and engaging in show trials against communist leaders in Iran. And so he basically sort of declared a war on the world. Finally, he. You know, called for Islamic revolution throughout the Persian Gulf.

MG: You can do that externally, but you also have to build a constituency inside the country. How did you go about doing that?

LUCAN WAY: So basically he he you know, I think although it's, you know, some level these actions seem irrational. Basically what this did by polarising the environment he forced, you know, people who were sort of unsure about Islamic rule to basically unite around him because anti-Americanism in Iran is obviously quite strong. So by, you know, attacking the embassy, there was a certain rationale behind that because suddenly everybody had to consolidate around his rule.

MG: Are you surprised, given that you described it in some ways as weak when he came to power, are you surprised that the power still remains within that community, that that the people haven't been able to strip that power?

LUCAN WAY: Well, I mean, what happened essentially was that by by calling for overthrow a Persian Gulf monarchies, the Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 and leading to a brutal war that killed about a half a million people. And this war with Iraq dramatically strengthened the Islamic Republic first. Above all, it created the Revolutionary Guard and Basij, which are one of the most powerful security forces in the world, and that have been primarily responsible for doing things like, you know, invading schools and killing minors and arresting thousands of protesters that we hear about today.

MG: That doesn't mean, though, that the people will be onside with the regime. And so you have seen over the course of 43 years a bubbling up of discontent. What are the roots of that? I mean, we can talk about what's happening now and we can talk about what happened in 2009. But what were the roots of that discontent?

LUCAN WAY: Well, you know, a number of things. First of all, you know, he created an Islamic republic in a very urban country. You know, there was intense opposition to this decision in Iran from the beginning. And there's intense opposition now to the many brave women who are fighting, you know, the severe restrictions on dress and the like. Second thing is that, you know, massive sanctions imposed in the 2010s have led to really serious economic crisis, you know, very high inflation. You have you know, you know, right now, 60% of Iranians are at or below the poverty line. So it's really not hard to understand why there's intense opposition.

MG: It's also an incredibly unpopular population and a population that despite, you know, barriers through connectivity are still connected in some ways and aware of what else is going on in the world.

LUCAN WAY: Absolutely. You know, they've been, they've tried to sort of shut down the Internet. Still 80% are on, you know, Instagram and those types of things that, you know, they're unable to sort of shut out the population. This is an urban, educated population. But on the other hand, you know, the Islamic Republic and other revolutionary regimes are very good at maintaining power, even though they have no popularity.

MG: So in 2009, we saw the Green Movement, often known as the Persian Spring, people standing up, thousands of people protesting the regime. Why did that movement fail?

LUCAN WAY: Well, you know, the movement, you know, it was a it was a what was perceived as a stolen election when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the conservative president, stole the election from Mir Hossein Mousavi, who was considered a moderate. And this, you know, quite a serious crisis in the regime. And I think there was sort of widespread belief that, you know, the regime just might fall. But what came to their aid was this sort of these strong institutions created in the Iran-Iraq war, the Revolutionary Guard and Basij, who, you know, were unapologetic in their willingness to crack down on the population. So rather than sort of making accommodation or or sort of trying to compromise with the opposition, like the Egyptians did and during the Arab Spring, what you know, what they did, they sort of they basically executed imprisoned dissidents. They held show trials. They beat up members of the elite who weren't toeing the line. I mean, these you know, these were incredibly brutal regime. And eventually they were able to put down these protests.

MG: And, as you say, a key factor, this is what you write about in the book, a key factor is that the security forces remained loyal to that regime.

LUCAN WAY: Yep.

MG: What does that tell you then about what's happening now when you take a look at the protests that are taking place in Iran at this moment? What's going through your mind given that sweep of history?

LUCAN WAY: Yeah, you know, sadly, you know, you know, these women are so inspiring. I mean, who is not inspired when you see these image of these brave women sort of otherwise defenceless, you know, standing up to, you know, an awful power structure. But it's sadly, this is, you know, the same old film we've seen before, you know. You know, the the main line of defence, again, is the Revolutionary Guard and besiege. Again, we see a regime that's completely unwilling to make any compromises.

MG: That unless you are able to get the security forces to question their loyalty and the elites who are at the heart of that power structure, the protests may not be as successful as people.

LUCAN WAY: Want them to be. Yeah, I think that's sadly the case. But I also I think there is sort of glimmer of hope. I mean, this is a country that's, you know, the economic crisis is not going away. You've had massive protests, you know, you know, multiple protests over the last decade. You also have, you know, something that I think is very important to to keep in mind, which is that revolutionary autocracies are strongest when the founding generation that that engaged in the first struggle is still alive. You know, so the Iranian revolution was 40 years ago, and it's only a matter of time before nature take its course. And these these what not?

MG: What does that mean? Nature takes its course. I mean that the old guard dies on.

LUCAN WAY: The old guard dies off. You know, everybody dies. And, you know, and what we found is that the second generation, you know, that replaces them tends to be sort of more corrupt, less united and less fanatical. And I think this much as a result that the regime weakens a bit. So I think this provides some glimmer of hope in the medium term that together with these brave activists, economic crisis, a sort of a more degraded elite, that the regime will fall.

MG: That's Iran. I want to talk about another nation that you write about in the book. This is an NBC report from the 4th of June 1989.

SOUNDCLIP

Some of the demonstrators tried to befriend the soldiers, saying that the people's army of the people should not be enemy. It was a short, peaceful interlude. In the early morning hours of Sunday, armoured personnel carriers began to advance on the square. There was a volley of tear gas. Then, without warning, the army opened up with bullets, firing indiscriminately at the crowd.

MG: They just killed another one in the square. It's the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing. You heard in that report pro-democracy students trying to convince soldiers of the people, the People's Liberation Army, to join them again, picking up on what we were talking about in Iran. Why didn't that happen in China?

LUCAN WAY: Well, it didn't happen. First of all, I mean, I think, you know, this obviously occurred right at the time that communism was collapsing throughout Europe. You know, many, you know, expected communism to also fall in China. You had these massive protests in Beijing and throughout China. And also, you know, these protests, you know, create a genuine crisis in the Chinese Communist Party. So many of the sort of younger generation who had sort of come to power after the revolution, you know, they were split. The actual head of the party, Zhao Ziyang, supported the protesters. So what saved it? What saved it was the fact that the old guard who, you know, come to power with Mao, who had been with Mao in the beginning when, you know, were still in power. And these were the, you know, fanatics ultimately that were able to impose unity on the Chinese Communist Party and allowed it to survive in 1989, when the Soviet Union, which, you know, all these sort of older generation that we talked about, all those guys were dead in the Soviet Union. But in China, they were still alive. And that's why you had, you know, communism surviving in China, but not in the Soviet Union.

MG: Communist Party of China just celebrated its 100th anniversary last year. It is what you call an example of durable authoritarianism. What does that mean?

LUCAN WAY: So it basically means that sort of there's no viable opposition in China, no organised opposition whatsoever. Ah, you have, you know, a very strong state that's able to pre-empt any sort of emerging people who might oppose the regime. They have, you know, this is in contrast to a lot of autocracies, you know, the Chinese communists have, you know, penetrate deep into both the private and public sectors of the economy. So there's no sort of independent source of potential opposition that sort of might lead to democracy in China.

MG: You also say that the Chinese Communist Party has been adaptive in some ways and and changed with the times and perhaps nowhere near as much change as people would have liked to see. But what does that mean, that it's adaptive?

LUCAN WAY: Well, I think it's clearly you know, the Chinese case is amazing. They you know, they transitioned from sort of hardcore communism under Mao and then under Deng Xiaoping in the late seventies and eighties, they did a radical economic transformation. They became one of the the most dynamic economies in the world. I mean, between 1978 and 2019, they grew at an average rate of 9%. So this, you know, is an incredibly, you know, dynamic economy. But, you know, this has a downside. Right. So, I mean, economic development in South Korea and Taiwan, you know, that increases demands for democracy. It creates an independent middle class, an independent business class that can challenge the regime. But in China, because of the Revolutionary War agents, they had a much stronger state. They had a much tighter grip over any form of potential opposition. So, you know.

MG: Is that why I mean, in some ways, you hear from observers who are watching the movements of the Chinese leadership, and they're very concerned about economic stability, that they don't want people to become restless when it comes to the issues of the economy.

LUCAN WAY: Absolutely. You know, the economy has been the source of their legitimacy. At the same time, I would say that sort of in contrast to other autocracies, even if the economy were to slow or decline, I think the regime is going to be remain very stable. It has one of the strongest autocratic states in the world. It's really unprecedented in terms of their surveillance technology and the like. So, I mean, and sadly, in contrast to Iran, where I think there's sort of glimmers of hope in the medium term, it's really hard to imagine communism collapsing in China anytime soon.

MG: But there have been demonstrations and perhaps very small wins in Beijing. But elsewhere you think of the umbrella movement in Hong Kong, the push towards greater freedoms in that. Movement kind of never really went beyond what we saw on the streets. It didn't lead to real affective change. Why is that the case?

LUCAN WAY: Yeah, well, it's because the revolution had sort of wiped out any form of civil society. And by civil society, I mean the churches, the trade unions, you know, the opposition that sort of provide a bulwark of democracy in many countries of the world. The revolution wiped out and created sort of totalitarianism in China. So, I mean, Chinese, like any people in the world, they like democracy. They you know, they many, many support democracy, but they don't have them tools to challenge the state. And so as a result, you know, I think, you know, many of their efforts are doomed to fail.

MG: What happens when the state attacks its own people? Why doesn't that lead to. I think part of it is the great firewall, I suppose, in China, where references to Tiananmen Square disappear. You can't find those online. But people word gets around. So why don't those acts of violence against citizens in countries like China or Iran or Russia lead to more opposition?

LUCAN WAY: Well, because, you know, opposition is incredibly costly. You know, we in Canada forget now we can, you know, vote, we can criticise Trudeau, you know, we can mock him to do those kind of things in a place like China or Russia leads to ten years jail terms. Right. So before we condemn the Chinese or the Russians for not rising up, we should think of what we would do if we were faced with ten years in jail for criticising Trudeau, for example.

MG: So you saw in the lead up to the recent party, Congress in China, banners being hung over some bridges. They were taken down very quickly. But there were a handful of banners and a handful of small protests. And, I mean, in this Congress, we saw Xi, the president of China, named to a third term. He could be president for life. What is. Do you see anything in those little glimmers of demonstrations?

LUCAN WAY: Yeah, I think it's heartening. I mean, I think I'm definitely sort of empathise with that. But I just I just don't see this. You know, there has to be, you know, opposition is one thing, but there has to be a way for that to actually transform into a real threat to the Chinese Communist Party. And I just don't see a path. They can translate these sort of brave dissidents who unfurl these banners, but they're immediately put in jail. I mean, so there's no parties, there's no anything, you know, organisation for them to really challenge the regime.

MG: You're talking about two nations, but there are many others that you'd speak to in the book. Why is a book like this? If necessary. Now what? What should we be thinking about in this moment?

LUCAN WAY: Well, I think you're right now. You know, these revolutionary autocracies, Iran, China, and to a very different way, Russia, really present some of the most serious challenges to the liberal world order. They've also been some of the most resilient regimes. You know, facing down economic crisis, major protests and the like. So, we have to, you know, these are sort of real threats to the world order and we have to understand the sources of their durability.

MG: At the G20 this week, the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, told President Biden the so-called democracy versus authoritarianism narrative is not the defining feature of today's world. Still less does it represent the trend of the times. What do you make of that?

LUCAN WAY: You know, I think that I think he overestimated the power of authoritarianism, to be honest. I mean, I think, you know, these autocracies present a real threat. At the same time, we've seen what autocratic government governance does in China with the catastrophic results of the zero-covid policies. We've also seen it in Russia. I mean, look at that invasion. I mean, who would want to repeat that experience? Right. I mean, Putin is essentially made a fool of himself. So it's it's.

MG: With with no opposition?

LUCAN WAY: With no yeah. With no opposition. Because basically, you know, the truth is that liberalism is quite dynamic. You know, having an opposition improves governance. Right? And so autocracies are, you know, and this is something that Frank Fukuyama has talked about recently. You know, autocracies are just bad at governing. And so I think in that sense, they're quite weak. The other thing to remember is that liberal democracy, while it's certainly in crisis in many ways, still dominates the world. So, eight of ten major economies are in the world of the ten, eight of the ten largest economies in the world are liberal democracies. So, liberalism is down, but it's certainly not out.

MG: What gives you that hope that it's not out?

LUCAN WAY: Well well, this is actually the subject of my next book, which is going to be much more optimistic. You know, I get a little tired of all this pessimism, and it's about sort of the fact that democracy, despite these challenges from revolutionary dictatorships and other and polarisation, like I mean, democracy still about half the countries in the world are democratic right now. You would never believe it by reading the news or the headlines.

MG: Which would lead you otherwise.

LUCAN WAY: Right. Exactly. And so, you know, we just look at the numbers. I mean, at its height, democracy in 2017 was about 54% of independent countries. Now it's down now to about 50%. And this is three times higher than it was in the 1980. So I think, while there's certainly reasons for concern, there's also a great deal of reason for hope.

MG: Where are those nations where for people who are supporting those protesters who are on the streets of Iran, perhaps they're concerned with what's going on in China, Russia, beyond. Where are the nations where that authoritarianism has cracked, where the protesters have been able to pull the stone out of the wall and see the wall collapse?

LUCAN WAY: Well, I mean, I think, you know, you see this, first of all, in cases like Ukraine, which has remained a dynamic democracy in the face of intense pressure, I mean, I think they're the the sort of inspiration for us all. I mean, what's actually interesting about Iran and Ukraine is that now they've combined their demonstrations, the opposition. So they really see themselves as a kind of movement for for for liberal democracy. And I think you do see sort of using a few years ago, the kind of liberal world was in kind of disarray. You had Brexit, you had the the debt crisis. Are you had the election of Trump. I mean, I think in some ways, the invasion the Russian invasion of Ukraine really kind of strengthened the liberal world order, made them realise what was at stake and sort of has created a level of cohesion that you just haven't seen in recent years.

MG: What about within that country, though? Again, if we talk about Russia and the hold that Putin has, is there any sense that that would be threatened by a war that many observers say has gone disastrously for Russia?

LUCAN WAY: Yeah, no, I think there's a really good chance that Russia will lose the war, unfortunately. You know, in Russia's interesting case, it's not a revolutionary regime. It was, you know, Soviet Union disappeared 30 years ago. Putin came to power not through revolutionary struggle, but he basically won the lottery, was picked out of obscurity and placed in his position by Boris Yeltsin in 1999. Nonetheless, Russia benefits from a number of revolutionary legacies going back to 1917. You know, decades of totalitarian rule basically decimated Russian opposition and civil society. Also, you had the creation of an incredibly powerful KGB, the most powerful security force in the world. And and, of course, Putin himself comes from that. And his his sort of worldview is very much a product in some ways of the 1917 revolution.

MG: What should the role of the West just finally in this and engaging with these nations? Because in part, one of the reasons why these revolutionary autocracies survive is because they run in opposition to the west. They run in opposition to, you know, countries meddling in their own affairs. And they can sell that back to their own populace and to to nations that might also follow that.

LUCAN WAY: It's a hard question because you're obviously right. You sort of in some ways were damned if we do and we damned if we don't. I mean, if we just let them sort of as we did in 2014 with Russia, just do what it wants, that encourages more activity. I mean, I think.

MG: In Crimea.

LUCAN WAY: In Crimea, yes. When when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, basically there was almost no response by the West. And that basically emboldened them. To invade in 2022. But same time, I think, you know. You know, as really I think ultimately we really need to sort of confront these head on and and sort of push back and and and engage in a much more proactive and aggressive pro-Democratic policies in the world stage.

MG: Look, in a way, it's good to have you here. Thank you very much.

LUCAN WAY: Thanks.

MG: Lucan Way is the co-author of a new book. It's called Revolutions and Dictatorship The Violent Origins of Durable Authoritarianism. He is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto. That is the current for this Thursday. q is up next on CBC Radio one. Sporty Spice on the programme. It's kind of like a time machine. Coming up in a few moments on your CBC Radio One. You'll hear all about that in just a moment. Earlier in our programme, we were talking about the Canadian National Men's Soccer Team. That team starts its World Cup journey next week, their first match against Belgium on Wednesday. A lot of hope in this country around the men perhaps doing something that women have done really well on the international soccer stage and that is performing at that highest level. FIFA released its official soundtrack for the FIFA World Cup earlier this year. And so help get you ready for that big match. This is a song from the album Hayya Hayya, which means Better Together, featuring Trinidad Cardona, Davido and Aisha. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. We'll talk to you tomorrow.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song]

Tuesday November 17, 2022 Full Transcript

Social Sharing