Against the backdrop of flames and devastation in the Middle East, the Harper government has adopted a foreign policy that is sharply at odds with Canadian practice over the past four decades.
On board the Canadian Forces plane taking him to Europe for the G 8 summit, Stephen Harper stated that Israel’s military assault in Lebanon in response to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers was “measured”. What was new was the unequivocal backing of Israel adopted by Ottawa. Indeed, at the time he made the statement, Harper’s support for Israel was more open ended than the positions taken by any of the other G 8 leaders. Even the Americans, unlike Harper, urged the Israeli’s to exercise restraint.
For the past four decades, since the American war in Vietnam, while Canada has remained a member of NATO and NORAD, this country has pursued a foreign policy distinct from that of Washington. Not only did Canada resist American pressure to send troops to Vietnam, it stayed out of the American led invasion of Iraq in 2003. In addition, Canada led the fight for the adoption of the international treaty against the use of land mines, which the U.S. failed to sign, and signed on to the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto environmental accord, which the U.S. also opposed.
Following the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, Canada positioned itself more closely to the European members of the western alliance than to the U.S. and Britain. While Ottawa did not lead the coalition of countries in opposition to the Bush administration’s Iraq adventure, it broadly followed the line set down by France and Germany. The decision of the Martin government to stay out of Washington’s Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence system strengthened Canada’s relative foreign policy autonomy.
During his few months in office, Stephen Harper has energetically aligned Canada with the Anglo “Gang of Three”, the U.S., Britain, and Australia, making it effectively a “Gang of Four”.
Since his first day in office, Stephen Harper has contemptuously dropped Ottawa’s stance of the past forty years. Against a weak and divided parliamentary opposition, he pushed for and won approval for a two year extension of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. While it was the Liberals who first got us into Afghanistan, Harper has made the mission a muscular extension of his pro-American militarism. Along with the fifteen billion dollar injection of new funds into the Canadian military, the emphasis is no longer on peacekeeping, but on what is euphemistically called peace making, or more bluntly on war making. Now in the Middle East, Harper has dropped the more even handed policies of Canada of the past. While Paul Martin shifted Canada’s stance closer to that of Israel and Washington, Harper has completed the shift in no uncertain terms.
None of this should come as any surprise. Long before becoming prime minister, Stephen Harper signaled where he stood on foreign policy and made it plain that at the centre of his thinking was the need for a much tighter alliance with Washington. Shortly after winning the leadership of the Canadian Alliance, in his maiden speech in the House of Commons as Leader of the Opposition on May 28, 2002, Harper made the case for an Alliance motion that charged the Liberal government with failure in its management of relations with the U.S. Harper’s thesis was that the Chretien government had been insufficiently staunch in its support for the positions adopted by the U.S. administration.
Harper accused Chretien of “open meddling in U.S. domestic politics prior to the 2000 presidential election when the Prime Minister stated his preference with regard to the outcome of that election.” He quoted the comments of the former political counselor at the U.S. embassy, David Jones, who said in January 2001 that Chretien exhibits “a tin ear for foreign affairs, especially those involving the United States.” Harper’s conclusion: “It is no secret that this poisoned the relationship between the government and the new American administration.”
Harper then broadened his attack on the Chretien government, beyond trade issues, to attack it for its entire foreign policy stance vis a vis the United States. “Downright hostility to the United States, anti-Americanism, has come to characterize other dimensions of Canadian policy,” he declared. “In 1996-97 Canada aggressively pushed forward with the treaty to ban landmines without giving due consideration to U.S. concerns about the potential implications for its security forces in South Korea. What did we end up with? We ended up with a ban on landmines that few major landmine producers or users have signed,” Harper charged. Having dismissed an anti-landmines treaty signed by most of the nations of the world in Ottawa, Harper went on to tow the Bush administration’s line on the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system. “Most recently we have been inclined to offer knee-jerk resistance to the United States on national missile defence despite the fact that Canada is confronted by the same threats from rogue nations equipped with ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction as is the United States.” Harper’s litany of complaints against the Chretien government ended with this nod to those who allege that Canada’s refugee system makes it vulnerable to terrorists: “The government has not adequately addressed the matter of security in the context of continental security. Because of the unreformed nature of our refugee determination system, we continue to be subject to unique internal security and continental security dangers.”
Having dismissed Jean Chretien as a leader who was always anti-free trade, Harper commended Brian Mulroney for having “understood a fundamental truth. He understood that mature and intelligent Canadian leaders must share the following perspective: the United States is our closest neighbour, our best ally, our biggest customer and our most consistent friend.”
Harper concluded with his own peroration, his set of principles for dealing with the United States. “Not only does the United States have this special relationship to us, it is the world leader when it comes to freedom and democracy…..If the United States prospers, we prosper. If the United States hurts or is angry, we will be hurt. If it is ever broadly attacked, we will surely be destroyed.”
Here was a theory of Canadian-American relations that allowed for no differentiation between the interests of the United States and those of Canada. If there were problems in the relationship, it was because Canadian leaders had been insufficiently devoted to supporting the United States on all essential matters of continental and global policy.
Since taking office, Harper has not only beefed up the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, he has signed on to a broader role for NORAD which will mean that elements of the Canadian Forces will often end up under the command of Americans in the land and sea defence of North America, as well as in the traditional aerospace operations of the alliance.
No one should have any doubt about where Stephen Harper will lead this country should the Conservatives win a majority in the next election. Not only will he remain a proud member of the Gang of Four, he will undertake initiatives to pursue Deep Integration with the United States in a host of economic areas. This neo-conservative will not be satisfied until the military alliance stands side by side with a customs union, a fortress North America approach to security, and if conditions allow, the adoption of a common North American currency.
In the meantime, Harper will take tactical steps to humanize his image as he did today when he announced that he would fly in his Canadian Forces plane from Paris to Cyprus to pick up a hundred or more Canadians who have been evacuated from Lebanon. He made it clear, though, that this did not signal a more even handed view of the conflict in the Middle East or that he was responding to his critics.
Whatever tactics they decide on, and however contradictory those may be, progressive Canadians should heed the writing on the wall and determine that their highest priority should be to deny this man and his party the unfettered rule they would gain with the election of a majority Conservative government in the next election.
On board the Canadian Forces plane taking him to Europe for the G 8 summit, Stephen Harper stated that Israel’s military assault in Lebanon in response to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers was “measured”. What was new was the unequivocal backing of Israel adopted by Ottawa. Indeed, at the time he made the statement, Harper’s support for Israel was more open ended than the positions taken by any of the other G 8 leaders. Even the Americans, unlike Harper, urged the Israeli’s to exercise restraint.
For the past four decades, since the American war in Vietnam, while Canada has remained a member of NATO and NORAD, this country has pursued a foreign policy distinct from that of Washington. Not only did Canada resist American pressure to send troops to Vietnam, it stayed out of the American led invasion of Iraq in 2003. In addition, Canada led the fight for the adoption of the international treaty against the use of land mines, which the U.S. failed to sign, and signed on to the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto environmental accord, which the U.S. also opposed.
Following the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, Canada positioned itself more closely to the European members of the western alliance than to the U.S. and Britain. While Ottawa did not lead the coalition of countries in opposition to the Bush administration’s Iraq adventure, it broadly followed the line set down by France and Germany. The decision of the Martin government to stay out of Washington’s Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence system strengthened Canada’s relative foreign policy autonomy.
During his few months in office, Stephen Harper has energetically aligned Canada with the Anglo “Gang of Three”, the U.S., Britain, and Australia, making it effectively a “Gang of Four”.
Since his first day in office, Stephen Harper has contemptuously dropped Ottawa’s stance of the past forty years. Against a weak and divided parliamentary opposition, he pushed for and won approval for a two year extension of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. While it was the Liberals who first got us into Afghanistan, Harper has made the mission a muscular extension of his pro-American militarism. Along with the fifteen billion dollar injection of new funds into the Canadian military, the emphasis is no longer on peacekeeping, but on what is euphemistically called peace making, or more bluntly on war making. Now in the Middle East, Harper has dropped the more even handed policies of Canada of the past. While Paul Martin shifted Canada’s stance closer to that of Israel and Washington, Harper has completed the shift in no uncertain terms.
None of this should come as any surprise. Long before becoming prime minister, Stephen Harper signaled where he stood on foreign policy and made it plain that at the centre of his thinking was the need for a much tighter alliance with Washington. Shortly after winning the leadership of the Canadian Alliance, in his maiden speech in the House of Commons as Leader of the Opposition on May 28, 2002, Harper made the case for an Alliance motion that charged the Liberal government with failure in its management of relations with the U.S. Harper’s thesis was that the Chretien government had been insufficiently staunch in its support for the positions adopted by the U.S. administration.
Harper accused Chretien of “open meddling in U.S. domestic politics prior to the 2000 presidential election when the Prime Minister stated his preference with regard to the outcome of that election.” He quoted the comments of the former political counselor at the U.S. embassy, David Jones, who said in January 2001 that Chretien exhibits “a tin ear for foreign affairs, especially those involving the United States.” Harper’s conclusion: “It is no secret that this poisoned the relationship between the government and the new American administration.”
Harper then broadened his attack on the Chretien government, beyond trade issues, to attack it for its entire foreign policy stance vis a vis the United States. “Downright hostility to the United States, anti-Americanism, has come to characterize other dimensions of Canadian policy,” he declared. “In 1996-97 Canada aggressively pushed forward with the treaty to ban landmines without giving due consideration to U.S. concerns about the potential implications for its security forces in South Korea. What did we end up with? We ended up with a ban on landmines that few major landmine producers or users have signed,” Harper charged. Having dismissed an anti-landmines treaty signed by most of the nations of the world in Ottawa, Harper went on to tow the Bush administration’s line on the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system. “Most recently we have been inclined to offer knee-jerk resistance to the United States on national missile defence despite the fact that Canada is confronted by the same threats from rogue nations equipped with ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction as is the United States.” Harper’s litany of complaints against the Chretien government ended with this nod to those who allege that Canada’s refugee system makes it vulnerable to terrorists: “The government has not adequately addressed the matter of security in the context of continental security. Because of the unreformed nature of our refugee determination system, we continue to be subject to unique internal security and continental security dangers.”
Having dismissed Jean Chretien as a leader who was always anti-free trade, Harper commended Brian Mulroney for having “understood a fundamental truth. He understood that mature and intelligent Canadian leaders must share the following perspective: the United States is our closest neighbour, our best ally, our biggest customer and our most consistent friend.”
Harper concluded with his own peroration, his set of principles for dealing with the United States. “Not only does the United States have this special relationship to us, it is the world leader when it comes to freedom and democracy…..If the United States prospers, we prosper. If the United States hurts or is angry, we will be hurt. If it is ever broadly attacked, we will surely be destroyed.”
Here was a theory of Canadian-American relations that allowed for no differentiation between the interests of the United States and those of Canada. If there were problems in the relationship, it was because Canadian leaders had been insufficiently devoted to supporting the United States on all essential matters of continental and global policy.
Since taking office, Harper has not only beefed up the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, he has signed on to a broader role for NORAD which will mean that elements of the Canadian Forces will often end up under the command of Americans in the land and sea defence of North America, as well as in the traditional aerospace operations of the alliance.
No one should have any doubt about where Stephen Harper will lead this country should the Conservatives win a majority in the next election. Not only will he remain a proud member of the Gang of Four, he will undertake initiatives to pursue Deep Integration with the United States in a host of economic areas. This neo-conservative will not be satisfied until the military alliance stands side by side with a customs union, a fortress North America approach to security, and if conditions allow, the adoption of a common North American currency.
In the meantime, Harper will take tactical steps to humanize his image as he did today when he announced that he would fly in his Canadian Forces plane from Paris to Cyprus to pick up a hundred or more Canadians who have been evacuated from Lebanon. He made it clear, though, that this did not signal a more even handed view of the conflict in the Middle East or that he was responding to his critics.
Whatever tactics they decide on, and however contradictory those may be, progressive Canadians should heed the writing on the wall and determine that their highest priority should be to deny this man and his party the unfettered rule they would gain with the election of a majority Conservative government in the next election.
No comments:
Post a Comment