Peace and Environment News* July-August 2000
|
Peace and Environment News * July-August 2000 |
The prevailing mythology that Canada is a major player promoting peace on the global stage is a powerful part of our national psyche. Even when presented with the facts about Canada's longstanding roles in aiding, abetting and committing crimes against peace, humanity and the environment, many will not discard their cherished myth.
I believe the peace movement's work begins with public education to make Canadians aware of the many ways in which our country's institutions encourage war and repression around the world.
Because our government excels in preaching peace while yet promoting war, our best strategy may be to expose government hypocrisy. While government leaders make glorious public speeches about Canada's heroic peace efforts, they shamelessly promote war industries that profit from ruthlessly exploiting people and natural resources. Our government—and particularly the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT)—leads the way in assisting corporations to reap the rewards of an unjust global economic order by extracting wealth from the world's poorest nations. Canadian military corporations have also received billions of dollars in grants from our government. For this dutiful obedience to corporate interests, the Liberal Party—and the Conservative Party before it—have received millions of dollars in donations from Canada's largest military exporters. These corporations know well who their allies are. Do we?
How can we seriously expect that a government so closely intertwined with the interests of the military industrial complex will serve as our ally in the struggle for global peace and justice?
In my recent article in PEN (May 2000), I summarized some of the facts published in the current issue of the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade's publication, Press for Conversion! I detailed dozens of concrete examples of government complicity in promoting military exports to repressive and warmongering governments.
In Robin Collins' critique of my work (this page), he does not present a single fact or argument to counter the facts presented in my article. His goal has more to do with undermining my contention that we simply cannot trust government to act in good faith on peace issues, given the financial connections between government and industry, and the extreme hypocrisy evident in our government's posturing on these issues.
Robin sees my mistrust of government foreign policy intentions as creating a "cynical vacuum" that will thwart their valiant efforts for peace. Meanwhile, I see his faith in government pretense as a naïvete that discourages the peace movement from exposing and protesting government complicity in war and repression.
Robin's point is that government is not monolithic and that there are some within the castle who struggle for peace. I agree. But I would also point out that there is a similar dynamic within the peace movement. While some oppose government complicity in crimes against peace whenever it arises, others argue that such opposition hampers what they perceive as government peace efforts. However, wouldn't those within government who genuinely work for peace actually be strengthened and thankful for continued pressure for peace from the public?
Robin argues that Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy is one of those whose struggles for peace from within government confines are hurt by the peace movement. I cannot see Minister Axworthy as our ally for peace because his words and deeds have so greatly promoted war and repression. The perception of Minister Axworthy as a peace activist is a central part of our grand, national myth of "Canada the Peacemaker."
Heroes and nations
Crucial to any myth is a hero who champions the fight against evil by courageously going into the fray to fight for what is good. Within the prevailing Canadian passion play, Minister Axworthy is often portrayed in this heroic light. As Robin says, Axworthy is "under the gun in his own political party, in Parliament, in caucus. ...He is being attacked because he is pressing for good policy..."
Let's briefly examine the role of hero in ancient mythology. Odysseus, the hero of Homer's Odyssey, has superhuman powers and is allied with the gods. As a great warrior, he commands the strongest army and navy of his day. The myth is a backdrop for showing off the hero's exploits. These are calculated to display his bravery, wit, wisdom and great feats of strength. The common folk are taught that their leaders are descended from the gods and that their heroic missions around the world are fraught with many dangers as they struggle against evil. By building a nation's pride in its heroes, myth builds nation's pride in itself.
But the Odyssey is also a horrific tale of Odysseus' leadership in the sacking of cities, the plundering of other nation's wealth and the sale of enemy women and children into slavery. The violent excesses of Odysseus are also turned against Greeks who dare to challenge his right to power. In ancient times, as in today's world, war is a deterrent to those who dare oppose the mythic hero, or the interests of his class or nation.
Myths like this serve to build the public's fear and acceptance for the heroic leader. No matter what horrific deeds our hero commits, and no matter what cities he has plundered for economic gain, he remains worthy of our respect and obedience. The hero's violence is used to protect the status quo but it is presented as if it were necessary for the betterment of the whole society and indeed of the noble and righteous principles of justice and goodness.
Who is our hero?
In myth of "Canada the Peacemaker," Minister Axworthy has the starring role as valiant hero. But like the heroes of old, our hero also has a dark side. On the one hand, he leads the government department responsible for promoting the export of Canadian military hardware. Behind closed doors, Minister Axworthy signs the permit forms that authorize exports of a vast array of Canadian weapons systems. Their destinations read like a who's who of regimes notorious for engaging in war and for terrorizing their citizens with the systematic use of torture, extrajudicial executions, unfair trials and the imprisonment of peaceful protesters.
On the other hand, with much public fanfare, our great smiling hero signs declarations to promote peace by discouraging the use of one particular weapon, the anti-personnel landmine, which Canada had stopped exporting during Tory rule in the mid-1980s.
Minister Axworthy is a boon to the war corporations that profit from strife and repression in foreign lands. At the same time, he pleases a naïve public who desperately cling to the belief that their cherished myth is true. Axworthy helps ensure that his party's coffers are brimming with corporate donations, while captivating voters eager for peace.
Behind the scenes
In deciding whether Minister Axworthy is really the peace movement's ally within government, I don't think we should overlook his promotion of military exports. Some may argue that we should ignore this behaviour as it is merely an anomaly in his otherwise pure policy record. Let's examine that record.
When Indonesia's General Suharto considered cancelling his attendance at the APEC summit in Vancouver, Minister Axworthy sent a letter assuring the dictator that Canadian authorities would ensure that protesters would not embarrass him. (Suharto came to power in a blood bath that left between 500,000 and 1,000,000 dead.)
Minister Axworthy supported our country's participation in the 1991 bombardment of Iraq, and he continues to support the genocidal, economic US/UN embargo that has, so far, resulted in over one million deaths, mostly children. (Currently, one of Canada's state-of-the art warships is enforcing this devastating blockade in the Persian Gulf.)
Minister Axworthy also publicly supported the illegal U.S. bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan and he was a major supporter of Canada's role in NATO's war against Yugoslavia. (The government admits that Canadian warplanes conducted 560 air raids and dropped about 1000 bombs on Yugoslavia.)
Since NATO's war, Minister Axworthy has been a leading champion of the so-called "humanitarian war" philosophy, which is a kinder and gentler version of the old "peace through strength" doctrine.
During the Mulroney era, Axworthy carefully cultivated a progressive image by courting peace and other grassroots movements. He now acts as a front man for the status quo, brilliantly putting the government's best face forward on many of the policies that he countered while in opposition. Certainly there are other, far more right-wing politicians in the Liberal cabinet than Minister Axworthy. They must be pleased that his "nice-guy" image deflects public attention away from the war policies that arise from the back rooms of DFAIT and the "Defence" Department.
With his "good cop" image and gestures of peace, Axworthy obscures the government's long-standing bellicose foreign policy. While he performs a few popular parlour tricks in the front lobby to distract the public, others work overtime behind the scenes to dream up much larger-scale policies, like "Defence 2020," which will even further integrate Canada's military into the US war machine.
Much of the peace movement's power comes from the fact that we are not afraid to confront those who promote and benefit from war and injustice. We are not cowed by authority, or tricked by the lies, hypocrisy and betrayals of the powers that be. We can see through the public relations nonsense that is so often presented as truth by government and mass media. I hope that we will not abandon these strengths to become naïve apologists for the government's prime strategy for peace, namely, "humanitarian wars."
Richard Sanders
Ottawa
[Richard Sanders is Coordinator of the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT)].
Converted October 21, 2000 - Lg
To follow up on this article, contact the author or the organizations/individuals mentioned; do not contact the Peace and Environment Resource Centre - we cannot provide follow up or contact information. This article is an archival copy of the printed one in the Peace and Environment News (PEN). Viewpoints expressed should not be taken to represent the opinions of the Peace and Environment Resource Centre, the PEN, or our supporters.
