Right Hook
JJ McCullough, OP Columnist

 

Perhaps one of this country’s greatest nationalistic myths
of is oft-stated belief that Canadians genuinely care about
the world. Canadians, we repeatedly tell ourselves, far
exceed all other nations of the globe in our sheer level of
humanitarian concern. We love the world, the world loves
us, and we never shut up about either.

One of the key idols in this cult of Canadian self-love
is of course peacekeeping. Could there be any activity
more noble? Other countries may make war, but we
Canadians—the Gandhi of the international community—
prefer to put our lives on the line to defend the safety, sta-
bility, and human rights of the planet’s less-fortunate
nations. Of course, the main problem with this peacekeep-
ing mythos we Canadians have created for ourselves is that
it’s simply not true. We celebrate peacekeeping because it
creates a good brand image for the country, not because
we actually want to get our hands dirty helping the world.

A good test is to ask someone if they can actually name
one of these proud peacekeeping missions Canadians are

_ supposedly so actively engaged in. Yes, yes, we all know
about the Suez Canal thing in the 1950s, but what about a
mission that doesn’t pre-date the microwave?

More than three decades after his death, we’re still
coasting on Lester Pearson’s Nobel Prize. Of course, this
is not to say Canada has done no legitimate peacekeeping

missions since then. On the contrary, our troops have
achieved meaningful (though often short-lived) peacemak-
ing victories in war-torn nations such as the Congo,
Cyprus, Kosovo, and even Israel. The fact remains, howev-
er, that such forgotten missions have been effective largely
because they have escaped public scrutiny. Recent history
has proven that once the Canadian public and politicians
actually start scrutinizing our nation’s military commit-
ments in any serious manner, it does not take long for our
supposedly boundless humanitarian goodwill to evaporate.

Case in point: Afghanistan. We’re now in our fourth
consecutive year over there, but only now are Canadians
themselves starting to notice. Over the last couple of
months, Canada’s present mission in Afghanistan has been
subjected to a flurry of speeches, editorials, and polls, all
espousing a common theme: should we even bother? A
recent poll suggested over 60 percent of our nation’s citi-
zens favour a pullout.

The Canadian mission in Afghanistan is a complicated
and multi-pronged mandate, backed by the United Nations,
NATO, and most of our major allies. Among other things,
our troops are helping safeguard the country’s fragile (and
democratically-elected) government, protecting Afghani
civilians and neighbourhoods from the intimidation and
terror of reactionary suicide attacks, seeking out and
destroying those who attempt to commit such crimes, and
dismantling the Al-Qaida terrorist infrastructure that pro-
vides their lifeblood. In doing this, Canada is helping stabi-
lize a country torn by centuries of warfare, prevent the rise
of another murderous, Taliban-like regime, and ensure that
another September 11-style attack never occurs on our
continent, or any other. Surely these are all good causes
that peace-loving Canadians can rally around?

But no. Stabilizing? Dismantling? Destroying? Why,
those all sound like things our troops could get hurt doing,
and God knows our fragile national psyche can’t handle
that!

Plus, staying in Afghanistan would involve continued

Memo to Afghanis: What about our needs?

co-operation with the evil devil-Americans, an act which
many Canadians seem to consider high treason in itself.

Or consider Iraq. The war-torn Iraqis certainly have no
shortage of problems to address, and as a result, over the
last few years several dozen nations have already offered
various forms of humanitarian assistance to the country.
The government of Japan, to cite but one notable exam-
ple, sent over 600 medical workers and engineers to Iraq in
the Spring of 2004. These men and women remain in the
country to this day, assisting with various mundane, but
important duties such as the purification of water and the
reconstruction of dilapidated buildings. Such gestures of
volunteerism are desperately needed, and greatly appreciat-
ed by the Iraqi people.

Forget about Canada ever doing such a thing, however.
So much as mentioning the word “Iraq” in this country is
enough to trigger a downright Pavlovian response of
frothing anti-American hysterics. Opposition to the Iraq
War has become such a cherished sacred cow in this coun-
try that even nominal conservatives like Stephen Harper
no longer bother trying to swing public opinion on the
matter. The needs of the Iraqi people—or what we can do
to help them are distant and forgotten concerns. Standing
up to the pig-dog Americans and humiliating George W.
Bush are far more pressing priorities.

There are words for these sorts of attitudes, but they
sure aren't “selfless” or “humanitarian.”

Canadians like our peacekeepers like we seem to like
most things: bland. No guns, no death, no violence, no
controversy, and, most importantly of all, no Americans.
The fact that this country is so downright eager to have
nothing to do with two of the world’s most neediest
hotspots speaks volumes of our true foreign policy priori-
ties. We’re all in favour of putting peacekeepers on our
quarters, just don’t ask us to make any sacrifices for the
rest of the world in the process.

 

Earth Needs Women!

Can the giris fix politics?

Left Overs

lain Reeve, OP Fella

 

 

This one is for all the ladies out there.

The fact is, we men are losing it. Thousands of years of
power and control over most of the world’s societies has
left us lazy, overconfident, bitter, and just plain. ..well male.
Look around: war, violence, environmental degradation,

arms taces, aggressive diplomacy, and discrimination.
Would any of these political problems be as prevalent if
women were in charge?

Women are stereotypically seen as the calmer, gentler,
more emotionally sensitive of the two genders. Long-
standing feminist theories have, thus, insisted that govern-
ments, corporations, and—God forbid—militaries led by
women would be less prone to things more commonly
attributed to men. Namely: hot-headedness, fighting, emo-
tional insensitivity, pride, and a lengthy list of other nasty
attributes. While to many folks, such as myself, the idea of
a kinder, gentler, more in touch world is a nice one, many
political realists would see this as catastrophe. We can’t
have people, male or female, who are weak and conciliato-
ry running countries in a system where consolidation of
power is key.

It may be worth noting that just about all these theo-
rists are men.

The pressure from this end of the spectrum is, howev-
er, disturbingly well entrenched. In a world of considerably
stiffer gender equality regulations, women attempting to

enter politics are, indeed, less likely to face outtight dis-
crimination. However, there are still countless reports of
hidden discrimination, harassment, etc. On top of this,
many women find it difficult to proceed far in politics
while maintaining their ideals. For this reason we are less
likely to see politicians who look like our moms, and look
more like Margaret Thatcher. As was said in the peak of
the Thatcher administration, “She may be a woman, but
she isn’t a sister.”

Recent attempts by parties to attract more female can-
didates have been largely in vain as women, even in the
NDP, which boasts the highest representation levels, are
well below 50 percent. Some have speculated that this is
due to the fact that parliament, especially in the most
recent session, has become a place very few women would
like to conduct political business. Petty snaps, insults, chest
thumping, and raised voices have made parliament a place
where even Thatcheresque women would feel conflicted.

Continued: P.9 ©