If Canada is asserting itself as a “middle power,” its government has consistently acted as if it were a superpower. The war in Afghanistan is only the latest in a number of historical precedents indicating Canada is simply partner to behemoth. One historical precedent that comes to mind is the reassessment of Canada’s participation in NATO as part of Trudeau’s 1968 election promise. Reading statements from ’69, the tone of the discussion comes off as woefully idealistic given today’s foreign policy. Serious demands for withdrawal from NATO were made in Cabinet, and there was a genuine interest in an independent Canadian policy. As the country’s NATO commitments were under discussion, journalist Dalton Camp stressed the importance of “thoughtful discussion” and “careful examination” of Canada’s priorities. Yet, Camp wrote,
one cannot have such a dialog unless the policy makers will listen to the policy critics. There is an abundance of evidence they do not. Almost everyone I know who performed in the ritual of review staged by the parliamentary committee this spring came away convinced they had been talking to the deaf; the rare exceptions were those whose opinions were agreeable to the committee. In the end, the government paid lip service to the academic performers and paid no attention at all to the committee.
The “intellectuals” — a pejorative word for impractical thinkers — had their moment on stage.
It is remarkable how firmly this holds true today, the only difference being that policy critics know they will go ignored. 38 years after Camp’s statement, Afghanistan Canada Research Group “intellectual” Michael Skinner would tell me much the same story. He was talking to the deaf. He had visited Afghanistan for five weeks in 2007, interviewing dozens of Afghanis on whether or not foreign troops should continue their occupation. First hand accounts provide a useful balance with academic and federal reports, and Skinner’s field notes and articles are telling. One excerpt reads: “We had a close encounter, when our taxi driver mistakenly pulled into an intersection in front of an ISAF convoy. Our driver stated we were fortunate the soldiers were Turkish rather than Canadian or American, because the Canadians and Americans are known to shoot the occupants of the car in such cases.” Skinner’s findings were ignored in the Manley Report, and Canada was put to war for another three years.
A few weeks later I interviewed John W. Warnock, a nationally recognized intellectual, thus entirely ignored. I am inclined to believe he is not only ignored by the “policy makers,” but by “policy critics” as well, and largely because his studied are critical and accurate. Thus we find Tom Keating in his extensive study, “Canada and World Order,” citing Dalton Camp’s introduction to Warnock, but not Warnock’s own independent and essential read, “Partner to Behemoth.” But if being ignored by policy makers and policy critics were not enough, Warnock is likewise ignored by the press. Warnock told me his latest op-ed on the NATO summit in Bucharest had been rejected by the Globe and Mail. And his piece is only part of the larger puzzle being completely ignored by the Canadian press. “The Russian and Chinese governments believe that the United Nations should be taking the lead in reaching a consensus position and finding a political solution,” Warnock wrote in his rejected column. “They argue that the expansion of the resistance in Afghanistan is due to the fact that the counterinsurgency war and the development strategy have been directed by the U.S. government with the support of its NATO allies.” Unlike the European and Asian press, this received no attention in the Canadian circles. Instead, “critical” Canadian commentary focused entirely on whether or not Canada could “secure” additional troops from France. Headlines such as Toronto Star’s “Afghanistan troop deal not there yet: Harper” were all too common. We all waited anxiously for an increase in NATO troop commitments while serious efforts were being made to remove the U.S./NATO occupation and thus alleviate the rising resistance, not to mention civilian casualties and opium trade.
Canadian politicians are also clearly ignoring NGOs when their efforts countervene with state interests. Former Médecins sans Frontières president James Orbinski says Canada is by no means on a humanitarian mission. “If anything, humanitarian aid and relief in Afghanistan are being held hostage to unclear and unfocused political objectives,” said Orbinski. The best thing that Ottawa could do for Afghanistan is to “decouple” humanitarian programs from military objectives, he insists. “That would dramatically affect the lives of Afghans.” But the military and humanitarian goals are intrinsically linked. As the head of the army, Lt. Gen. Andrew Leslie said in 2007, the Canadian Forces work “hand in glove with the folks from the Canadian International Development Agency [as well as] reinforce the diplomatic activities and efforts of Foreign Affairs.” Humanitarian aid is the driving force of propaganda efforts to appease weary voters at home, where support for the war is on a steady decline. Thus International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda was recently in Afghanistan reaffirming the “accelerated” pace of funding to the country, and stressing the increase in female student enrolment, as the Russians did when they invaded in the 1980s. Orbinski’s warning again fell on deaf ears, and CIDA and the Department of National Defence are virtually joined by the hip.
Above and beyond the ignored academics and doctors are Afghan politicians themselves. During one of the most powerful interviews I ever conducted, exiled Afghan MP Malalai Joya told me about the outright corruption of the Northern Alliance government, naturally propped up by U.S./NATO support. In an earlier interview with rabble.ca, Joya said “the great people of Canada should know that today our people in Afghanistan are not looking at their soldiers as any different from U.S. or other NATO troops. For our people, all of them are the same because, unfortunately, for seven years they have followed the footpath of the U.S.” Any study of Canadian foreign policy would prove Canada has been following the U.S. footpath for far longer than seven years, but Afghans have just recently learned the effects of this bond. She went on to say that “you cannot bring values like democracy and human rights by supporting the sworn enemies of these values […] Canada should act independently of the United States and find an alternative policy if they really want to be an honest friend of the Afghan people and improve this catastrophic situation.” On a recent visit to Canada, Joya endorsed NDP leader Jack Layton, who consistently denounced the war along with the Bloc Quebecois. Joya has gone ignored by Parliament, who voted in favour of an extension of the war until 2011 despite widely held pleas for withdrawal.
On top of the academics, doctors and politicians are the people, who have also fallen entirely on deaf ears. During the World Against War global protests in March, thousands across Canada took to the streets in protest. Montrealers marched through the heart of the city, but there was no coverage in the Montreal Gazette the following day. A good portion of the newspaper was instead devoted to anti-Seal hunting activists and police brutality clashes. This is a typical trend. The Angus Reid Stategies poll, for example, was also ignored by the Gazette. The poll found that 58% of Canadians disagreed with the decision of Parliament to extend the Canadian mission for another three years. Strong disagreement was expressed by 42% of Canadians. Supporters of the war were, not surprisingly, supporters of the Conservative Party (72%). Those opposing the extension of the war included Liberals (63%), NDP (74%), Bloc Quebecois (78%) and Green Party (68%). A trend emerges in all of this. Academics, doctors, politicians and people, all denouncing the war, all ignored.
Matthew Brett is an anti-war activist and freelance journalist based in Montreal. Read other posts by Matthew Brett.
