Welcome to Canadian Foreign Policy: Following American Rhetoric

by Jim Miles

23 November 2006

Canada has been delivering a much stronger foreign policy position towards the Middle East since the election of Stephen Harper's minority government. The current government has shown strong uncritical support of Israel, has used a small but aggressive military presence in Afghanistan, and has followed the United States footsteps in their debate on Iran and nuclear power.

I have over the past several months – since the increase in Canada's role in Afghanistan as part-time command leader in southern Afghanistan – sent many correspondences to the Canadian Members of Parliament concerning Canadian Foreign Policy. Some of these astute politicians wish to remain ignorant and have simply blocked my correspondence, but I occasionally receive a reply, all having the same familiar rhetorical ring to them that Canada's intentions in Afghanistan are noble and peace worthy. I am sure they are, but measured against the background information available on Afghanistan, its history and its current state of affairs, there are some serious contradictions and misunderstandings that appear in the responses I receive.

The overall main rhetorical statement is the tired response as per Peter MacKay, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, saying Canada's role is to create a “secure and self-sufficient democratic state that never again serves as a terrorist haven.” It is a wonderful sentiment, but the accepted methodology is that of military occupation, democracy by bullet, with little if any consideration given to negotiations and diplomatic communications in the broader region and in particular in communicating with Pakistan, the key player in the conflict within the local region.

Canadian politicians appear to be collectively ignorant of the history of Afghanistan in relation to CIA interference, the Soviet invasion, the U.S. support of the mujahideen through Pakistan, followed by the American abandonment of the area, the subsequent rise of the Taliban to fill the devastated leadership vacuum left behind, the U.S. non-acceptance of the Taliban's offers to turn over bin Laden, followed by the spectacle of American bombardment of what little was left of Afghanistan's infrastructure.

That ignorance extends to the current command structure for Afghanistan, in which the UN has “authorized” the International Security Assistance Force to operate there. The UN is not in command, it has simply put its approval on paper; NATO is the command organization in control of Afghanistan operations. NATO is, and always has been, led by an American four star general, currently General James L. Jones (USMC), headquartered in Mons, Belgium. Gen. Jones is Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) double hatted with the position of U.S. European Command. Canada may have UN “authorization”, but operates under NATO command, which is essentially an overseas fiefdom of the U.S. military.

The U.S. is not too concerned who is in power in Afghanistan as long as they pay obeisance to American power, allowing a trans-Afghanistan pipeline to be built for a more protected shipment line for Caspian Basin oil, and allowing American military bases to guard Iran on one side and Russia on another. In short, Canada, while it may delude itself with grand rhetoric and good intentions, is serving the intentions of the U.S. military and U.S. oil interests.

I have said before, that perhaps if Canada stated that the U.S. screwed up in Afghanistan and we are there to try and repair the damages and help the people recover, I might be more accepting of their role. But so far I have seen no one in power even attempt to chastise the American military effort in the Middle East as being fully counter-productive to its purported aims. More importantly however, even if they admitted that – which the opposition New Democrats have done – it still leaves wide open the big question as to how to go about accomplishing the stated goals. When one out of every ten dollars spent in Afghanistan is spent on reconstruction of different types and the rest, ninety per cent, is spent on military tactics that have only inflamed the resistance and drawn Pakistan closer and closer into the conflict, I find it hard to accept that stability, governance and poverty reduction are truly being enabled.

The “remarkable strides” claimed by Mr. MacKay are more apparent on paper than they are on the ground. With the leader of the Canadian military saying that for every Taliban killed, fifteen more will replace him, it puts significant doubts either into the veracity of the government's paper claims, or into the intelligence of the Canadian commander – or both. The information that is available on alternate news sites – at least alternate for North Americans – such as Asia Times, Al- Jazeera, Counterpunch, ZNet – presents a different and more disturbing picture of the explosive potential of the region as more and more resistance to foreign troops arises. The Taliban are a local phenomenon, members of the Pashtun people, and divided with different tribal loyalties, home grown insurgents who resist the authority of the Afghani government in Kabul, the Pakistan government, and all outside occupying forces. We may not agree with their theocratic plans, but it is truly none of our business, unless we can enter into negotiations with them – as has been suggested recently – for a peaceful transfer of power offering assistance and restitution, and eliminate our military aggression. War begets war; peace begets peace.

Two other areas of significance that I have communicated to Canadian MPs concern Iran and Israel. These two areas are obviously tied strongly together, as well as with the above discussion on Afghanistan within the overall American geopolitical strategy in the Middle East.

Mr. MacKay's position on Israel is also at odds with the reality presented by the alternate media, and with many well-researched and well-argued works on the reality of Palestine/Israel that is not allowed to be seen by a compliant North American press. He says “The establishment of genuine democratic institutions and the continued advocacy of terrorist activities are fundamentally incompatible. Hamas, because of its association with terrorist activity, has been listed in Canada as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code.” There are three problems with this statement.

First, there is no definition of terror. Is it the indiscriminate bombing that targets women and children as well as “legitimate” soldiers? If so, then Israel is by far the worst terrorist organization in the area, deliberately targeting children and women during peaceful Palestinian demonstrations, and killing many more during what have become regular IDF interventions into Palestinian territory with the excuse of no harm intended, the old reliable “collateral damage” excuse. Is terror defined by a suicide bomber, a supposedly psychotic killer let loose in a crowded public place to destroy as much of anything he can, civilians and businesses included? I would argue that the only difference between a Hamas suicide bomber – truly a terror tactic – and an Israeli pilot in an American F-16 dropping bombs and firing missiles into alleged Hamas safe houses is a matter of technology with the delivery system. The Israeli military and its politicians truly care little about the ever-increasing death toll of civilians. The Israeli tactics are terror tactics designed to force the Palestinians into submission and obedience and deny them any and all democratic rights while they are concentrated in prison camps, such as Gaza has become and such as the ‘wall' is creating in the Westbank.

Secondly, is the juxtaposition of democracy and terror. Israel is far from a democratic state, asserting its right on a theocratic basis, without a constitution, and as it uses terror against the Palestinians with massive military projection far beyond the capabilities of the Palestinians. By Mr. MacKay's argument, it would only follow that Israel is not a democratic state.

Thirdly, is the involvement of Canada's Criminal Code. Hamas has never attacked Canada or Canadians, or Americans for that matter. They are a home-grown insurgency attempting to fight back against the Israeli occupation of Palestine. According to all definitions of terrorists and war crimes that I have read, Canada should be targeting Israeli and American military and political leaders as the most significant advocates of terror and creators of war crimes in the Middle East – it should perhaps look in a mirror as well. Ironic that the Americans deny the validity of the International Criminal Court, aware of their own culpability in war crimes and crimes against humanity. I have heard no statement form Mr. MacKay on this aspect of criminal investigation.

The Road Map is also supported by Mr. MacKay, as it “remains the best framework to eventually resume negotiations toward a comprehensive peace agreement, with a long term goal of peaceful negotiations toward a two-state solution.” He has “urged” Israel “to refrain from excessive use of force,” at the same time that Canada saw Israel's attack on Lebanon as being “proportionate.” It is all double speak: the Road Map is dead and gone, killed by Sharon and Bush with all the blame being appointed to Hamas and the Palestinians. There is much more to this story that I will not reiterate here, but for those wishing more information there are several excellent sources written by Israeli writers and activists that should be read by anyone in Foreign Affairs claiming to understand the Israeli/Palestine problem. Of the best works are Tanya Reinhart's “The Road Map to Nowhere”, and “Israel/Palestine”; Ilan Pappe's “A History of Modern Palestine”; Jonathon Cook's “Blood and Religion – The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State”; Geoff Simon's “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”; and finally Ramzy Baroud's “The Second Palestinian Intafada.” Without having read these indictments of Israeli and American actions against the Palestinians, ignorance remains the common denominator for Canadian Foreign Policy.

Finally we encounter Iran – or should I rephrase that and say we better not encounter Iran. Mr. Mackay argues that Iran “must heed the calls of the United Nations Security Council” – which if Mr. MacKay would read Scott Ritter's new work “Target Iran”, he would know that Iran did abide by the UN resolution, but received none of the promised security assurances or guarantees of trade and negotiating rights that were promised in return. Because of that, they restarted their uranium enrichment activities, which they are fully and legally entitled to under international law and specifically the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to which they are signatory. Mr. Ritter, if anyone in the Canadian government remembers – or ever knew – was one of the UN's top weapons inspectors in Iraq, and served as an officer in the U.S. Marines and as a ballistic missile advisor to General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf War, hardly credentials of a left wing conspiracy theory radical. He was right about Iraq – there were no nuclear weapons nor the materials and facilities to make them – and his current conclusion on Iran is “if there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.” The prelude to an attack on Iran is following the same course of that for Iraq, including Ritter's assessment that Iran is not in contravention of any law or treaty, that “what was clear was that Iran was not in violation of its NPT obligations in any aspect of its ongoing interaction with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency].” Ritter's book was written before the November elections signalled large disenchantment with Bush – it remains to be seen what transpires as “the ultimate objective of the Bush administration regarding Iran is war.” One again, Canadian Foreign Affairs is taking on a distinctly American cast, without demonstrating a true knowledge of what is transpiring beyond the rhetoric.

It is a rather grievous situation when the politicians of Canada do not inform themselves adequately of what is truly transpiring in the Middle East, but choose to follow the American political and media line. Yes there are terrorists in this world, and yes there are areas that could use international assistance in order for their populations to live in peace. Following the aggressive democracy by bullet policy of the Americans breeds only more anger and mistrust and is not the answer.