Canadians born in the Baby Boomer generation, and even
Generation Xers, know that traveling around the globe was a lot easier for us than it
was for our American brethren. This was the result of our good standing
throughout the world and our reputation as a sane and progressive country on
almost all issues, both international and domestic.
So many of us who traveled around other countries considered
it wise to sew a Canadian flag on our knapsacks and show it proudly. Indeed,
there were countless stories of Americans traveling with a Canadian flag on
their backpacks so as not to incur the wrath of the locals who held
anti-American sentiments.
Why were we so popular?
Well, for a variety of reasons. Of course, the courage and
fighting spirit of our soldiers in both World Wars was a large reason for our
popularity, especially in Europe. So was our reputation as a peace loving
nation, which undoubtedly was enhanced by the role that Lester Pearson played
in the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956. Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize for his
efforts and soon afterward became our Prime Minister. Shortly after this, our
troops became known as “peace keepers”, a term that does not engender the warm
reception in our current era that it did only a short time ago.
From what I have been told by several young Canadians who have
traveled abroad in recent years, the reception is not as warm when locals hear
that the backpacker in front of them is from Canada.
What happened?
Well, clearly something was amiss when the United Nations
rejected Canada’s bid for a seat on the Security Council in 2010. The United
Nations has been an organization that Canadians took seriously from its
inception right after World War II. Most Canadians were proud to be connected
to the UN in such a positive way. Since the 2010 rejection of the Canadian bid,
it amazes me to read and hear from conservatives that the UN is a “joke” of an
organization, that it supports corrupt regimes, that it is anti-Semitic, that
it is too “leftist.”
Well, I for one preferred it when Canada was a proud member
of the United Nations, and lament what has become of our country’s relationship
to this global umbrella entity that past Canadian leaders and citizens valued so much.
I must ask why did the UN reject our bid. By corollary, I
must also ponder just why it is that Canadians are not as warmly embraced when
they travel abroad.
My speculations have led to a few conjectures.
First, Canadians by and large used to be concerned with the
state of our environment and the state of the planet itself. It should come as
no surprise, even to conservatives, that our federal government has not
presented itself as a leader in preserving the environment. In Copenhagen, as
well as at other international summits on climate change, Canada has come
across as either a backward nation with its head in the sand, or as a
representative of Big Oil interests. Indeed, conservative commentators on the
blogosphere paint anyone concerned with the degradation of our environment as either
naïve or a socialist wanting to shut down resource extraction or some other
nonsense. Of course, this situation was exacerbated when Prime Minister Harper
and other Conservative cabinet ministers began the discourse that
environmentalists are “eco-terrorists” funded by radical foreign entities.
Oddly enough, the support that Big Oil has given
conservative governments across the land gives credence to the argument that
foreign radical entities have been supporting the contemporary
conservative-corporate agenda for several years now. Canada does not have a
member of the Big Oil companies. Harper’s Conservatives sold off the remaining
publicly-owned shares of PetroCanada to SunCor a few years ago.
And in the last budget bill, the Conservative government weakened our commitment to force industry to abide by environmental assessments. Many assessments have now been tossed aside across the entire country.
And in the last budget bill, the Conservative government weakened our commitment to force industry to abide by environmental assessments. Many assessments have now been tossed aside across the entire country.
So Canada is now seen as a having a very regressive position on environmental
issues. This is clearly a change from even less than a decade ago.
What else could be fuelling Canada’s fall from grace on the
international stage?
Israel. Since forming government, the federal Conservatives
have come to be seen as the biggest international supporter for anything the
Israeli government does. Anything! Many of us can recall the words of Prime
Minister Harper hours after the Israeli government indiscriminately bombarded
neighbourhoods in Beirut in response to Hezbollah capturing two Israeli soldiers. “This
is a fair and measured response,” Harper said, even as the bombs continued to
fall on innocent civilians.
Since that episode, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, John
Baird, has trumpeted nothing but unwavering support for Israeli actions against
Palestinians, such as the construction of new settlements on Palestinian lands.
There are many people, in Europe but even here in Canada, that do not
appreciate Baird’s unconditional support for the Israeli government no matter
what the circumstances. This is not an anti-Israeli position. It is a
perspective on how best to reach a negotiated peace settlement in the area. A
strong argument can be made that such a position is anti-racist and supportive
of social justice initiatives.
Moving along.
Is Canada still seen as a peace keeping nation? Hardly.
Witness our federal government’s declarations around Libya, Afghanistan, and
Syria. This past winter, Mr. Harper even went so far as to say he is
“frightened” by the regime in Iran. We can only speculate as to why he said
this when he did.
Doing nothing positive about the environment. Furthering the
interests of Big Oil in an era of Climate Change. Supporting any Israeli action
against the Palestinian people unconditionally. Presenting to the international
community as a hawkish nation rather than as a peace loving nation. These are the actions
taken by the Harper Conservatives since coming to power in 2006.
If I were still one of those young Canadians backpacking
around the globe, I would take the Canadian flag off of my backpack, too.
Harperites clearly represent Canada's elite, not "normal" Canadians, as noted by Sandy Cameron in "Canadian Identity and Class War":
ReplyDelete"What does it mean to be a Canadian? What kind of a society do we want to live in? Canadians have been asking these questions since they first decided to build a nation north of the 49th parallel that would reflect characteristics different from the extreme, sometimes violent, individualism of the United States.
In his book, Lament For A Nation, the Canadian philosopher George Grant wrote: "Our hope lay in the belief that on the northern half of this continent we could build a community which had a stronger sense of the common good and of public order than was possible under the individualism of the American capitalist dream."
In July, 1995, Joan Fraser of The Edmonton Journal wrote about a study involving 2,400 ordinary Canadians and 1,000 members of the Canadian establishment (the wealthiest and most powerful Canadians). This study found a wide gap between the attitudes of the two groups. Among the concerns of ordinary people were personal and economic security (including steady employment), a healthy population, a clean environment, human rights, and equality. The élite group was more concerned with competition, deficit cutting, and minimal government. From a list of 22 possibilities, ordinary Canadians ranked the élite's first choice, "competitiveness," 20th, and the élite's third choice, "minimal government," last.[2] Obviously, ordinary Canadians have a much stronger sense of community responsibility than does the élite of Canada."
Here is yet another reason to feel shame about being a Canadian during this particular era. I have just learned that the Harper Conservative government is lessening its commitment to the Ottawa Treaty, a federal government-led international agreement spearheaded by Canada to rid the world of landmines in war-torn countries such as Bosnia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Iraq.
DeleteIn fact, 125 countries signed onto the agreement, and this led to the International Committee to Ban Landmines winning the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.
Sadly, the Harper Conservatives are abandoning the cause, with rumours out of Ottawa saying Harper's team is not interested in the de-mining of foreign fields because of political reasons. They do not like its connection to the federal LIberal governments led by Jean Chretien.
This is yet one more reason why I would not be so eager to have a Canadian flag sewn onto my backpack these days.
Thanks for this thoughtful post!
ReplyDeleteYes, it is certainly clear to me that the elites have a different set of interests in the sociopolitical realm than we Canadian commoners have.
A serious problem arises when common Canadians adopt the interests of the elites, understanding them to be universal interests. The recent clip of Romney giving a speech to his fellow members of the elite at a fundraiser: he claimed that Americans who vote for Obama have the audacity to expect the government to help them get housing, food, healthcare and jobs. "How dare they!"
Another related example of this is with the notion of minimal government. I see this dynamic happening with the US-based Tea Party and with the supporters of the Reform Party here in Canada, a movement that is now in control of our federal government.
(For those of you too young to remember, a young Stephen Harper was a Reform Party MP from 1993-97. Yes, he has been a life-long politician, a status usually despised by Reform Party and Tea Party supporters.)
Adopting the interests of the elites as your own (and believing them to be universal interests) is a classic example of what Antonio Gramsci meant by the important term "hegemony."
High school Social Studies, Civic Studies, and History teachers need to deconstruct "hegemony" so that the next generation of citizens will not be so easily duped by hegemonic discourses in the media. If this does not occur, I believe that civil society will be at stake. (As we see from the vociferous attack on pension plans across many western nations today, some aspects of civil society are already under serious threat.)
"Corporate tax cuts will get the government more revenue for social programs?" What rubbish!!
For anyone concerned about Canada'a reputation on the international stage, I urge you to spend 3.5 minutes watching John Baird represent us at the UN in late November. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZhfWv6Sds4
ReplyDeleteIt is so clear that very few non-Canadians appreciate this guy and strongly disapprove of what he and Harper are doing to Canada's reputation on global affairs.