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

March 28, 2017
Mike Whitney
Ending Syria’s Nightmare will Take Pressure From Below 
Mark Kernan
Memory Against Forgetting: the Resonance of Bloody Sunday
John McMurtry
Fake News: the Unravelling of US Empire From Within
Ron Jacobs
Mad Dog, Meet Eris, Queen of Strife
Michael J. Sainato
State Dept. Condemns Attacks on Russian Peaceful Protests, Ignores Those in America
Ted Rall
Five Things the Democrats Could Do to Save Their Party (But Probably Won’t)
Linn Washington Jr.
Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Hiring Practices: Privilege or Prejudice?
Philippe Marlière
Benoît Hamon, the Socialist Presidential Hopeful, is Good News for the French Left
Norman Pollack
Political Cannibalism: Eating America’s Vitals
Bruce Mastron
Obamacare? Trumpcare? Why not Cubacare?
David Macaray
Hollywood Screen and TV Writers Call for Strike Vote
Christian Sorensen
We’ve Let Capitalism Kill the Planet
Rodolfo Acuna
What We Don’t Want to Know
Binoy Kampmark
The Futility of the Electronics Ban
Andrew Moss
Why ICE Raids Imperil Us All
March 27, 2017
Robert Hunziker
A Record-Setting Climate Going Bonkers
Frank Stricker
Why $15 an Hour Should be the Absolute Minimum Minimum Wage
Melvin Goodman
The Disappearance of Bipartisanship on the Intelligence Committees
Patrick Cockburn
ISIS’s Losses in Syria and Iraq Will Make It Difficult to Recruit
Russell Mokhiber
Single-Payer Bernie Morphs Into Public Option Dean
Gregory Barrett
Can Democracy Save Us?
Dave Lindorff
Budget Goes Military
John Heid
Disappeared on the Border: “Chase and Scatter” — to Death
Mark Weisbrot
The Troubling Financial Activities of an Ecuadorian Presidential Candidate
Robert Fisk
As ISIS’s Caliphate Shrinks, Syrian Anger Grows
Michael J. Sainato
Democratic Party Continues Shunning Popular Sanders Surrogates
Paul Bentley
Nazi Heritage: the Strange Saga of Chrystia Freeland’s Ukrainian Grandfather
Christopher Ketcham
Buddhism in the Storm
Thomas Barker
Platitudes in the Wake of London’s Terror Attack
Mike Hastie
Insane Truths: a Vietnam Vet on “Apocalypse Now, Redux”
Binoy Kampmark
Cyclone Watch in Australia
Weekend Edition
March 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Michael Hudson
Trump is Obama’s Legacy: Will this Break up the Democratic Party?
Eric Draitser
Donald Trump and the Triumph of White Identity Politics
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Nothing Was Delivered
Andrew Levine
Ryan’s Choice
Joshua Frank
Global Coal in Freefall, Tar Sands Development Drying Up (Bad News for Keystone XL)
Anthony DiMaggio
Ditching the “Deep State”: The Rise of a New Conspiracy Theory in American Politics
Rob Urie
Boris and Natasha Visit Fantasy Island
John Wight
London and the Dreary Ritual of Terrorist Attacks
Paul Buhle
The CIA and the Intellectuals…Again
David Rosen
Why Did Trump Target Transgender Youth?
Vijay Prashad
Inventing Enemies
Ben Debney
Outrage From the Imperial Playbook
M. Shadee Malaklou
An Open Letter to Duke University’s Class of 2007, About Your Open Letter to Stephen Miller
Michael J. Sainato
Bernie Sanders’ Economic Advisor Shreds Trumponomics
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail