Articles

Canadian Politics, Economy and Foreign Policy

Imperial Agenda

The New Canadian Militarism

Editorial | October 29th 2006 | 4

Back in January, when the Harper Tories eked out their election squeaker, Canadian foreign policy wasn’t even on the radar screen, despite valiant efforts by the anti-war movement to challenge Canada’s role in the occupations of Haiti and Afghanistan. Things will be different next time. As Canadian troops die in sizeable numbers for the first time since the Korean War, foreign policy could become a key factor in blocking a Harper majority.

It’s true that the military brass, key business organizations like the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the political right are pulling out all the stops, and this may have some impact. The “red rallies” to “support our troops” are a well-orchestrated campaign to whip up patriotic fervour, and every time a bomb kills civilians in Kabul, the corporate media sings the “save the Afghan civilians” tune.

But instead of liberating women and girls, our troops are killing their fathers and brothers. And these “bad guys,” as General Rick Hillier calls them, can shoot back. Every time Stephen Harper puts on his metaphorical cowboy hat to talk tough, voters are reminded that this is a bloody war of occupation.

Meanwhile, the Tories joined the Bush regime as cheerleaders for Israel’s assaults on Lebanon and Gaza. Even the Israeli killing of one of the few Canadian soldiers actually engaged in an official United Nations peacekeeping mission could not budge the government’s position. Then Canada managed to send the annual Franocphonie Summit into turmoil by a bizarre reluctance to simply acknowledge the suffering of Lebanon, a member country of the Francophonie.

Many voters will have the softwood-lumber deal on their minds. The agreement limits Canadian lumber exports to the U.S. and allows the Americans to keep $1 billion in duties ruled by trade tribunals as illegal. For workers and communities that rely on the forestry industry, this unpopular agreement smacks of serfs and slaves paying tribute to a distant but bloody-minded emperor.

This shift towards vassaldom reflects much deeper processes, which have been emerging for years. The 9/11 events gave the U.S. state the opportunity to openly declare a new set of security doctrines, extending its overseas military capabilities to secure oil-supply routes in the Middle East and Asia. It views Canada’s energy resources in the same way. Tightly linked with the Calgary oil crowd, the Harper Tories are acutely aware that their role in the new international order is to keep feeding the ravenous U.S. war machine, and their foreign policy reflects this view.

Booting out the appalling Tories would help, but unfortunately they aren’t the only sellout party. The governments of Mulroney, Chretien and Martin all moved to align Canadian foreign policy more closely with American imperial interests, particularly from the first Gulf War on. Chretien’s and Martin’s budgets pledged $15-billion increases to military spending. Throw in Harper’s further $5 billion, and Canada is now the third-largest contributor to the “War on Terror” after the U.S. and Britain. The entire basis of the shift towards U.S.-driven foreign policy must be exposed. It’s a big job, but if it doesn’t happen, it could be curtains for any possibility of a truly independent Canadian role in global politics.

Building the peace movement and mobilizing popular forces against American imperialism and Canada’s new militarism must be given first priority in the months ahead. Some unions are passing good resolutions, but are not doing enough to mobilize their members. Similarly, the Israel boycott, disinvestment and sanctions campaign need to become operational. Union pension funds and university and church investment policies are obvious targets. We need to step up our own work in the labour and student movements and in faith communities.

4 comments

• Sir or Ma’am,

  If the “red rallies” to “support our troops” are merely ‘a well-orchestrated campaign to whip up patriotic fervour’, what is the entire ‘peace’ movement?

  I suppose it would, by this logic, be a ‘poorly-orchestrated campaign to rally public opinion against brave volunteers who face immense danger on our nation’s behalf.’ It coincidentally seeks to appease religious fundamentalists whose vision of the world precludes the concept, let alone the pratice of human rights and democracy. Even those who oppose the mission in Agfhanistan had a place at the red rally. (Though they were admittedly a tiny minority.)

  The last red rally drew almost 10,000 people. Last weekend’s radical demo drew less than 500, even in Montreal and Toronto, cities of several million. Organized by two wives of Canadian heroes serving in Kandahar, the rally was an opportunity for Canadians to show a small shred of gratitude for the considerable sacrifice Canada’s warriors and their families make in order to fulfill the UN-mandated objective of lifting Afghanistan out of the darkness of totalitarian theocracy. The discrepancy in size and public passion at the two events should speak for itself. 

  The ‘peace’ movement is a pacifist movement. It believes nothing is worth defending by armed force. That is a morally noble position, but a politically untenable one.

  I love your publication because it reminds me of why the far-left will never attain power nationally in Canada. Your editorials are so doctrinaire and outdated it makes most Canadians laugh. I just finished my undergrad degree, but when I visit CD I feel like I’m back in a first-year seminar at an undistinguished Canadian university.

  Keep up the good work, comrades!

  -Disgruntled socialist who feels the Canadian left should focus on its core economic issues and stop self-hating Canada-bashing at every opportunity

  #1. Posted by Patrick on November 2nd 2006 at 10:45am

• “Chretien’s and Martin’s budgets pledged $15-billion increases to military spending.”

  One could argue that these are vote buyer budgets and therefore more reflective of the public then explicit government interests. Instead of solely looking at budgets, we must look to see how these funds are articulated—and if articulated into the military, what the military does with these handouts. I.e., taking a peacekeeper or peacemaker role. The latter seems to be the Harper agenda. Note, the sending of tanks to Afghanistan.

  #2. Posted by Steven H on December 8th 2006 at 7:52pm

• It doesn’t matter what political party you favor, our governments are all controlled by central banks and the elite behind them - they are all connected. These elitists have the same goal to form a world bank, world military, world justice system, single currency, etc. . What we are witnessing is the creation of New World Order. Put the parts together to see the whole picture! Look up “THE SECRET TREATY OF VERONA”. I’m an American- born and raised. This is home. But, I’m very dissapointed in the way our government has treated its citizens and other countries. Bush wipes himself with our Constitution and is a nasty nasty inhumane beast. He kills innocent people and condems other leaders for doing the same. But you have to look beyond Stupid to understand there are other evil groups pulling the strings. Look up Freemasons, Illuminati, Black Pope, Bildrebergers, Skull and Bones,Totalitarian tip-toe.

  #3. Posted by T Potter on December 29th 2006 at 7:49am

• Being a member of the millitary, I do agree that this spending is really not useful for our goals. Our current system is full of waste, and could very easily be streamlined to make more effective use of our resources.

  With regards to Afghanistan. There is very few exceptions to the statement that oppressive governments are toppled from within, barring any outside interference, and even then, countries citizenry have overcome. Look at the coup in Venezuela, the non violent elections in brazil if you need current examples. While a temporary increase in instability will arise, no other country has the obligation to remove the right of an oppressed people to free their own country.

  This does bar however, avoiding situations similar to Rwanda, as prevention of genocide is a well established goal of the UN

  #4. Posted by A Sears on January 3rd 2007 at 2:37pm

Commenting disabled.