Canada's Foreign Policy
What Canada Is Up To at the UN
- Steve Rutchinski and
Philip Fernandez -
Canada is up to no good at the United Nations
where it is very active in promoting imperialist definitions of rights
and cajoling countries to adopt those definitions of rights under
threat of retaliation by imperialist financial, military and political
institutions. Canada's aim is to push through a restructuring in the
field of international relations in a manner which serves
U.S. imperialist interests.
The appointment of the tried and true point man of
the Anglo-Canadian state, Bob Rae, as Canada's Ambassador to the United
Nations is for purposes of achieving these nefarious aims. Undaunted by
its failure to be elected to the Security Council, Canada's
announcement of Rae's appointment was accompanied with much ado about
his being a champion of multilateralism, human rights and peace. A
briefing note from the Prime Minister's Office described Rae as a fine
choice to "continue to engage our international partners and promote
the Canadian values of peace, freedom, democracy, and human rights as
we move forward in a time of global uncertainty."
Deeds, however, provide clarity as to what Canada
stands for when it comes to "values of peace, freedom, democracy, and
human rights." Canada's foreign policy is based on the domination of
the world by the western imperialist system of states, led by
Anglo-American imperialism and using NATO as the enforcer. The policy
is not new, based as it is on a narcissistic resuscitation of the
self-serving doctrine called "middlepowerhood" promoted as the guide to
Canadian diplomacy in the service of U.S. imperialism in the Cold War
1940s.[1]
Rae fits right in as a trusted champion of
Anglo-American imperialism. His track record on matters which continue
to be of concern reveals very well that there is nothing remotely
progressive about what Canada is up to.
In 2004, Rae supported Canada's involvement,
together with France, in the U.S.-led coup in Haiti and overthrow of
the popular democratically elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide government.
With true gangster logic, Rae said it was Aristide's "ineffectiveness
and gross corruption" that led to the coup that overthrew his
government, not the illegal intervention by the U.S., Canada and France.
 Rae is an ardent
Zionist and an unabashed supporter of Israel's abuse of its
responsibilities as an occupying power consistently standing against
the Palestinian people's rights. He served on the steering committee of
the "Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism" convened
in 2009, which sought to undermine the rights of the Palestinian people
by criminalizing and silencing those who oppose Israeli crimes against
the Palestinians by branding them anti-Semites.
It is noteworthy that regarding Gaza and the
Occupied Territories, which have been turned into the world's largest
open-air prison and where crimes against the peace and against humanity
are committed every day by the Zionist state of Israel, Canada and its
UN Ambassador have nothing to say! Nay more, this year Canada is
actively opposing the investigation of Israeli war crimes and crimes
against humanity by the International Criminal Court. This is Canada's
"human rights" agenda in action!
In 2010, Rae allied with the Harper government to
support an increased military deployment in Afghanistan. He opposed a
scheduled Canadian troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and called for
Harper to "see this through."
In 2011, Rae was the Liberal Party's Foreign
Affairs Critic in the Parliament. He called for regime change in Libya
and supported Canada's participation in the savage NATO bombing which
destroyed that country and unleashed the violence, instability and
insecurity that has since spread southward to Mali and across the Sahel.
When Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez
died in March 2013, Rae tweeted his "condolences, and hopes for
democratic future." When President Nicolás Maduro was
elected by the people of Venezuela in 2013, Rae called for Harper to
impose tougher measures against Venezuela. As recently as January 2020,
he added, "Chávez and Maduro have abused their power
terribly, impoverished their people and created the greatest
humanitarian and refugee crisis in modern Latin American history. The
romanticization of their regime and ideology is a disgrace."
Canada is using "middlepowerhood" and a
long-standing foreign policy in favour of multilateralism to protect
Anglo-American imperialist interests, under the leadership of the
United States and backed by NATO "hard power," cobbling together
"coalitions of the willing" as necessary.[2]
In a CTV interview in July, Rae put it this way:
"The basic fundamentals of how we approach life, how we approach
politics, how we approach international relations, those foundations
are strong," he said, "And I don't want to see us throw any babies out
with the bathwater."
The recent Halifax International Security Forum,
which Canada helped fund and once again played host to, had a special
session on the role "middle powers" can play, including a topic "Go
Canada!" The Forum also unveiled a so-called Handbook for Democracies,
entitled China vs Democracy: The Greatest Game,
which states:
"While the United States remains the free world's
natural leader, alliances and partnerships among democracies will be
different than those of the twentieth century. Reimagining democratic
alliances that are fit for the 21st century is the most urgent task of
the day."
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking at
the Nixon Library this past summer, put it this way: "The challenge of
China demands exertion, energy from democracies -- those in Europe,
those in Africa, those in South America, and especially those in the
Indo-Pacific region. And if we don't act now ultimately the CCP
[Chinese Communist Party] will erode our freedoms and subvert the
rules-based order that our societies have worked so hard to build. If
we bend the knee now, our children's children may be at the mercy of
the Chinese Communist Party, whose actions are the primary challenge
today in the free world. [...] So we can't face this challenge alone.
The United Nations, NATO, the G7 countries, the G20, our combined
economic, diplomatic, and military power is surely enough to meet this
challenge if we direct it clearly and with great courage."
Canada is an instrument of precisely these
reactionary politics at the UN: "reimagining democratic alliances that
are fit for the 21st century," at the expense of the UN itself if
necessary; conspiring with like-minded "international partners" to
block nations from pursuing their own nation-building projects; and
turning UN forums into battlegrounds against those considered rivals,
are all par for the course.
In an October 23 Globe and Mail
interview, Rae alluded to the kind of "reimagining" Canada has in mind.
"Sovereignty," he said, "is not the only principle recognized in the
[UN ] Charter, and over the last 70-odd years we've created, not only
the Universal Declaration, but a number of institutions to focus on
human rights." He accused Russia and China of "making a strict
interpretation of the UN Charter" to pit "sovereignty" against "human
rights." Rae must have in mind the imperialist Responsibility to
Protect (R2P) thesis, which Canada crafted and which the U.S. and NATO
use to run roughshod over the UN Charter. For example, R2P was used by
Canada to justify the destruction of Yugoslavia and Libya.
Just ahead of the Halifax International Security
Forum this year, Canada joined a group of 39 countries organized by the
United States to accuse China of "human rights violations" and
"genocide" against the Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. Britain presented a
joint statement to this effect. As Canada's Ambassador to the UN, Rae
stated that he could not produce evidence to substantiate the claims,
but called on the UN Human Rights Council to investigate to see if
something could be found.
The UN has already substantiated evidence that Canada mistreats
Indigenous nations. Would Rae support a "colour revolution" to
bring about "regime change" in Canada and inspire covert terrorist acts
in Canada as is done against China? No discussion is permitted on the
basis of the UN system which recognizes all countries as equal, big or
small, based on sovereignty. Adding doctrines like R2P in the
name of protecting human rights is a pragmatic and unjustifiable move
which destroys the principled basis of international relations to
permit crimes against the peace.
 As for peace and
upholding the principles of the UN Charter, at an October 24 Security
Council meeting regarding Syria, Rae turned truth on its head, accusing
Russia of prolonging the conflict in Syria by using its veto against
further U.S. intervention. The war in Syria was begun by U.S.
imperialism, Canada and other NATO allies in violation of the UN
Charter. Terrorist bands inflicted huge damage upon the people of
Syria, under the watchful eye of a U.S. and NATO occupation. This
includes the so-called White Helmets, private military contractors
Canada pays for and protects under cover of a humanitarian agency. The
U.S. has even outright seized control of Syrian oil reserves but Canada
presents discussion of any substantive issues as taboo. It is
past-master at creating mechanisms which make sure no discussion takes
place.
Just this past week, on November 27, more than 70
countries at the UN called for an immediate end to unilateral coercive
measures -- i.e., sanctions and embargoes which the U.S. primarily has
imposed on various countries. Such measures were condemned as a
violation of human rights and the sovereignty of nations, particularly
in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Canada however did not
participate or pronounce its opposition to unilateral coercive measures.
These are but some of the latest examples of what
Canada is up to at the UN under Bob Rae's stewardship. Attempts to
"reimagine" alliances that fit the U.S. imperialist agenda for the 21st
century are unacceptable. They exist in the heads of those who do not
want to accept reality as it is. They think that the conditions which
have far outstripped their 19th century games still prevail.
Afghanistan remains as elusive as it was then and to charge into the
Valley of Death like the Light Brigade did is just as disastrous a
course today. It is pathetic that Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland and
Bob Rae have not learned that duty, today, is not to "King and
Country." It is to the peoples of the world and the well-being of the
natural and social environment. It is for the realization of the
peoples' cause for peace, freedom and democracy in the 21st century.
Going up against a force 6 billion-strong is not only openly foolish;
it is reckless indeed.
Notes
1. Middlepowerhood
Giovanni Botero, a mayor of Milan in the 15th
century, defined a "middle power" as an actor with sufficient strength
and authority to stand on its own without the need for help from
others. Since then, the concept of middle power has been consistently
mentioned in the field of international relations. The "grading" of
state actors first became a subject of diplomatic debates at the peace
settlement of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. It was then that a class of
middle powers was formally recognized, among them the states of Germany.
The concept of middle powers received serious
examination in the final stages of World War II in relation to Canada
and Australia. The two countries tried to find ways of enhancing their
influence based on their contributions to the Allies. At the early
stages of the establishment of the United Nations, Canadian Prime
Minister Mackenzie King insisted that middle power countries should
co-operate with each other, with an eye to securing their influence in
international society, suggesting the concept of "Middlepowerhood" in
1944. In Australia, Minister for External Affairs Herbert Evatt
discussed the concept of middle powers with a view to secure his
country's national interest in a new world order after World War II.
Since then, the concept of middle power has become a trademark of the
foreign policy of the two countries.
("A
Critical Review of the Concept of Middle Power" by Dong-min Shin,
E-International Relations, December 4, 2015.)
2. In 1942, Canadian diplomat Hume Wrong
emphasized that international society should respect Canada's role as a
middle power in three functional criteria: extent of involvement,
interest, and ability.
The behavioural perspective holds the view that a
country is a middle power if it plays certain roles considered as those
of a middle power or if it identifies itself as such. Professor Andrew
F. Cooper and his colleagues proposed that pursuing multilateral
solutions to international problems, preferring compromise positions in
international disputes and embracing notions of good international
citizenship constitute the typical behaviour of a middle power.
The third approach is the hierarchical perspective
which ranks and categorizes states by applying standards relating to
their capabilities. It tends to use statistical indices for
categorizing countries such as size of territory, GDP, the volume of
trade and foreign currency reserves, population, and number of
soldiers. Countries with medium-range capabilities are grouped as
middle powers, and great powers and weak powers can be categorized in
the same manner.
(Ibid.)
This article was published in
Volume 50 Number 47 - December 5, 2020
Article Link:
Canada's Foreign Policy: What Canada Is Up To at the UN - Steve Rutchinski and
Philip Fernandez
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
