This commentary was first published in the Palestine Chronicle 2006 03 20

Palestine, Afghanistan and Canada's Reputation

Canada has had a favourable image around the world for reasons that I would like to think can be attributed in part from our previous record as a United Nations peacekeeper. Indeed it was Canada’s Lester B. Pearson who suggested to the United Nations during the 1957 Suez Crisis that the combatants be separated with a UN peacekeeping force, an idea that was accepted, implemented, and for which he received the Nobel Peace prize. The second attribute that finds Canadian friends around the world is that we are defined as being ‘not Americans’, that we hold different ideals of humanitarian compassion and social responsibility.

The recent Israeli attack on the Palestinian prison in Jericho to ‘capture’ Ahmed Saadat resulted in the kidnapping of various foreign personnel, one of them being a Canadian aid worker, Mark Budzanowski. After thirty hours of detention he was released with the recognition that he was Canadian and was told by one of his captors “We love Canada.” After his release Mr. Budzanowski remained in Palestine, saying, “this is tangible help we are giving and there’s no reason for me to go home because of an incident like this.”

That positive Palestinian view, unfortunately, may change as current events with Canada at home and abroad show signs of a more right wing hard line approach.

The first leading incident was Canada’s first confirmed killing of an Afghan civilian in Kandahar, where they are leading the international force as a “Provincial Reconstruction Team”. These teams are not peacekeeping forces but are used to extend the influence and power of a supposedly democratic Kabul government. Ultimately what it amounts to is that Canada is operating under NATO command (not UN as some believe), and thus American command, to extend and maintain the American frontier in Afghanistan.

Canadian military authorities described the civilian killing as a “tragedy” and as being “very upset” (as perhaps compared to the Afghan family of Mr. Hassan who are undoubtedly “upset” as well). It is only one incident, but eventually, as time and attacks wear on the nervous edges of Canadian troops, this will probably become more frequent and then downgraded to an American style “collateral damage” or worse, as in Iraq, simply unreported.

To bolster the moral of the troops, Canada’s new Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, decided to make a secret surprise visit to Kandahar a la George Bush, and made a speech replete with ‘Bushisms’. He indicated that Canada would not “cut and run”, a direct line from George Bush along with other lines that also appear as if the American neocons wrote his speech. He also indicated that to cut and run would “not…be…in the best interests of Canada's international reputation” although I would argue that Canada’s reputation is well on the way to being tarnished.

The real purpose of the visit was not so much to bolster the moral of the troops, who will patriotically fawn over any political leader that acknowledges them, but much more for the press and media at home. Harper, like Bush and his neocon cronies, never has and never will see military action, but the chance to show true grit and be photographed wearing army fatigues was an opportunity not to be missed. Mostly, it would support his minority government at home as the media quietly and politely followed every lead supplied by his appearances and rhetoric.

And that rhetoric was the rhetoric of American hegemony, disguised as democracy and freedom, when the real purpose is to control the Middle East and its one source of natural resource wealth – oil. America supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan in their battle against Soviet forces and then abandoned them to their grim destitution without any thought of reconstruction. Many years later, after the Taliban, after al-Queda, after a heavy American air assault on what remained of Afghan infrastructure, the Americans again abandoned Afghanistan and are delegating their authority to other countries for reconstruction as they ‘cut and run’ to more strategic areas.

Stephen Harper, as Canada’s new leader, has always had a strong conservative right wing agenda that fits in very well with the current crop of American neocons as well as with other conservative forces in America. He carries the same religious ideology, the same political views (small government, limited if any social support systems, private medicare), and now the same foreign affairs policy supporting Israeli occupation and using the military as the leading edge of peace and democracy. Harper originally supported sending troops to Iraq, but hindsight political expediency has softened that attitude.

Unfortunately, the world does not work in hindsight and Stephen Harper now views the world in the same manner as the American right. Fortunately his government is a minority government; unfortunately, he is clever and crafty and knows how to bide his time and make solid political opportunities to create more popular approval.

Canada under Harper will become much less a peacemaker and much more a mercenary under the American empire. It will become much less a source of humanitarian compassion and social responsibility. Many, the majority of Canadians, do not want this. But politicians have never paid much attention to populist sentiment once in power.

I sincerely hope that I and other Canadians can maintain Canada’s sense of compassion and humility against the American’s overweening pride and conceit and that should I venture out into the world, I too would hear “We love Canada” expressed as a true humanitarian sentiment.