FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Respect Squandered?

by MICHAEL NEUMANN

Yves Engler’s The Ugly Canadian:  Stephen Harper’s Foreign Policy is partly a follow-up to his excellent Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid.   Because I have problems with this second monograph, I want to stress that it’s well worth having simply for its meticulous and damning analysis of Canada’s how-low-can-you-go efforts in support of Israel on the international scene.  Engler’s researches move beyond Canada’s contemptible posturing at the UN to unearth such lesser-known disgraces as persecution of pro-Palestinian activists and enhanced tax breaks for Israeli settlements.   The book also contains an important account of Canada’s shameful behavior in Haiti.  Elsewhere, despite some valuable research, it suffers from a questionable premise and excursions into material much trickier than the Israel/Palestine conflict.   Let me try to explain.

The questionable premise, a handy narrative device, is that Harper has squandered the respect Canada once earned in foreign policy.   This builds on a deeply entrenched Canadian myth.   Canada is an attractive destination for immigrants from many countries, but this should not be confused with its stature as a player on the international stage.   There it was indeed respected by many smug diplomats and commentators in the white world, people who themselves suffered from an excess of self-respect.    It probably is still respected by this same bunch.    For most other observers, Canada has always been seen as America’s poodle – a creature that earned amused applause for its occasional outbursts of disobedience, but certainly not an object of respect.   That would have required more than occasional refusal to participate wholeheartedly in America’s most ludicrous idiocies, in Cuba, Vietnam  and Iraq.   If you try to imagine Canada sending substantial economic – let alone military – aid to these ‘enemies’ of the US, you’ll see what I mean.   You could also consider Canada’s pre-Harper engagement in America’s Afghan operations, especially after the initial 2001-2002 deployment.

As for difficulties with Engler’s material, they fall into two categories.   One has to do with opening a book on foreign policy with a critique of Canada’s energy and environmental policies under the heading of “Tar Sands Diplomacy”.   To cast these policies as foreign policy sleaze has two drawbacks.   First, it focuses on the diplomatic effects of a domestic political cause and, frankly, a defect of the democratic process.   Harper, like most democratic politicians, panders to his core electoral base, in this case  in the energy-producing provinces.   The policies can’t be understood by focusing on diplomatic maneuvers.   Second, Engler’s focus misses what makes this a more difficult issue.   It is not the Canadian government so much as the Canadian people who are the real obstacle to serious environmentalism, which would require some sacrifices.   But the foreign policy issues that occupy the rest of the book aren’t just pure foreign policy issues, they’re issues where Canada acts almost on a whim.    What’s so striking about Canadian policy on Israel, Iraq, Libya and Haiti is that Canada has nothing at stake.   Not so the foreign-policy effects of domestic environmental politics.

Engler’s other difficulties have to do with trying to make his subject-matter serve his ends before it’s in shape to do so.   When Engler discusses Israel, he draws on decades of well-established research and reporting, so that the facts are virtually beyond reasonable doubt.   What’s more, there is a rich vein of material that relates directly to Canadian foreign-policy decision-making, and Engler has a field day with that.   But when he discusses Libya, and by extension Canadian policy elsewhere in the contemporary Middle East, the ground shifts.    Here Engler does not and cannot deal with well-established facts.   To make his case against Harper, he must make the truth appear far more obvious than it really is.     He is conducting a polemic about events that are still unfolding, and cannot hope to speak with the authority he established when discussing the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Rather than trying to argue with Engler about the whole truth concerning Libya and Syria,  I’ll provide one example of the pitfalls of his approach.   Anxious to prove that Canada was wrong to oppose Gaddafi, he would like to show that virtually every widespread anti-Gaddafi story is at best ill-founded, at worst a deliberate fabrication.   One of these stories is that Gaddafi employed mercenaries.   Engler favors the idea that this is a falsehood prompted by racism towards the black Africans in Libya.  In support of this contention, he draws on a story very widespread on the internet, which has an investigator for Amnesty International, Donatella Rovera, stating that “…even the rebels have admitted that there were no mercenaries, almost all have been released and returned to their countries of origin.” (Engler, p.103)   And that indeed is a verbatim quote from every English-language account of the investigator’s statement that I could find online.   There is a small problem here and a big one.   The small one has to do with what the story seems to establish.  If the Libyan rebels decided that these Africans were not mercenaries, it doesn’t exactly bolster the hypothesis that all the claims about mercenaries were driven by racism.   In fact the new Libyan government did eventually convict some white Ukrainians of being mercenaries, and there is direct eye-witness testimony of hiring in Chad.   The larger problem is that the Amnesty’s claim that “there were no mercenaries” rests, not on an official report, but on an interview Rovera gave to an Austrian newspaper.   The interview has been mistranslated.   “There were no mercenaries” should read “These were no mercenaries”, i.e., the rebels stated that there were none among a particular batch of detainees.

These are the dangers of basing a foreign policy assessment on ‘findings’ before the verdict is in.

MICHAEL NEUMANN is a recently retired professor of philosophy.  He is the author of  What’s Left: Radical Politics and the Radical Psyche and The Case Against Israel. He can be reached at:mneumann@trentu.ca and maintains a blog at http://insufficientrespect.blogspot.fr/

 

Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at a Canadian university.  He is the author of What’s Left: Radical Politics and the Radical Psyche and The Case Against Israel.  He also contributed the essay, “What is Anti-Semitism”, to CounterPunch’s book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism.  He can be reached at mneumann@live.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

February 21, 2017
Sharmini Peries - Michael Hudson
Finance as Warfare: the IMF Lent to Greece Knowing It Could Never Pay Back Debt
CJ Hopkins
Goose-stepping Our Way Toward Pink Revolution
John Wight
Firestarter: the Unwelcome Return of Tony Blair
Roger Harris
Lenin Wins: Pink Tide Surges in Ecuador…For Now
Shepherd Bliss
Japanese American Internment Remembered, as Trump Rounds Up Immigrants
Boris Kagarlitsky
Trump and the Contradictions of Capitalism
Robert Fisk
The Perils of Trump Addiction
Deepak Tripathi
Theresa May: Walking the Kingdom Down a Dark Alley
Sarah Anderson
To Save Main Street, Tax Wall Street
Howard Lisnoff
Those Who Plan and Enjoy Murder
Franklin Lamb
The Life and Death Struggle of the Children of Syria
Binoy Kampmark
A Tale of Two Realities: Trump and Israel
Kim C. Domenico
Body and Soul: Becoming Men & Women in a Post-Gender Age
Mel Gurtov
Trump, Europe, and Chaos
Stephen Cooper
Steinbeck’s Road Map For Resisting Donald Trump
February 20, 2017
Bruce E. Levine
Humiliation Porn: Trump’s Gift to His Faithful…and Now the Blowback
Melvin Goodman
“Wag the Dog,” Revisited
Robert Hunziker
Fukushima: a Lurking Global Catastrophe?
David Smith-Ferri
Resistance and Resolve in Russia: Memorial HRC
Kenneth Surin
Global India?
Norman Pollack
Fascistization Crashing Down: Driving the Cleaver into Social Welfare
Patrick Cockburn
Trump v. the Media: a Fight to the Death
Susan Babbitt
Shooting Arrows at Heaven: Why is There Debate About Battle Imagery in Health?
Matt Peppe
New York Times Openly Promotes Formal Apartheid Regime By Israel
David Swanson
Understanding Robert E. Lee Supporters
Michael Brenner
The Narcissism of Donald Trump
Martin Billheimer
Capital of Pain
Thomas Knapp
Florida’s Shenanigans Make a Great Case for (Re-)Separation of Ballot and State
Jordan Flaherty
Best Films of 2016: Black Excellence Versus White Mediocrity
Weekend Edition
February 17, 2017
Friday - Sunday
David Price
Rogue Elephant Rising: The CIA as Kingslayer
Matthew Stevenson
Is Trump the Worst President Ever?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Flynn?
John Wight
Brexit and Trump: Why Right is Not the New Left
Diana Johnstone
France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface
Neve Gordon
Trump’s One-State Option
Roger Harris
Emperor Trump Has No Clothes: Time to Organize!
Joan Roelofs
What Else is Wrong with Globalization
Andrew Levine
Why Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban?
Mike Whitney
Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper
Vijay Prashad
Trump, Turmoil and Resistance
Ron Jacobs
U.S. Imperial War Personified
David Swanson
Can the Climate Survive Adherence to War and Partisanship?
Andre Vltchek
Governor of Jakarta: Get Re-elected or Die!
Norman Pollack
Self-Devouring Reaction: Governmental Impasse
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Destruction of Mosul
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail