Canada’s efforts to appease the US are undermining a fundamental part of our culture
By Humza Sayed
On Nov. 29, 2012, a UN resolution by an overwhelming majority of United Nations member states voted to upgrade Palestine’s political status from a “political entity” to a “nonmember state,” virtually granting Palestine a higher level of political influence in the region to further their goals of a twostate solution, and eventually, peace and stability. A total of 138 countries out of 193 voted for Palestinian recognition. A landslide victory, if you ask me. Except for Canada, who voted against the UN resolution to upgrade Palestine’s status. But why?
It frustrates me that my country, which was once known as a middle power, now takes a hardline stance on rejecting Palestine’s cries for political autonomy. From education in our primary schools and learning of past Canadian prime ministers, I’ve learned things about Canada that I am proud to represent — the notions of impartiality, neutrality, and compassion.
Lets look at Canada’s record of foreign policy. Arguably two of our most beloved and revered prime ministers, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and Lester B. Pearson, instilled Canada with its inherent qualities of neutrality and compassion. Trudeau showed us that Canada is completely free to do as it pleases in the international sphere — without influence from the US. At the height of the Cold War, Trudeau forged an unlikely friendship in the ideological chaos of Cold War era politics with Fidel
Castro.
Remember Castro? The longterm “brutal” communist dictator of Cuba, despised by the US, his nation a communist ally of the nuclear-armed Soviets? Yes, that Cuba and that Castro. Trudeau defied Canada’s relationship with the US and stood up for neutrality and tolerance, maintaining a close and personal relationship with the man. Castro was even at Trudeau’s funeral, seen in pictures paying his final respects to Trudeau’s casket draped with the Canadian flag.
Can it be that Canada is an international player in the Middle East, and wants to protect its interests in the region? Perhaps, but we must recall the actions of another great prime minister, Pearson. Albeit before his tenure as prime minister, Lester B. Pearson’s efforts to end the 1957 Suez Canal Crisis between Egypt and Israel won him the Nobel Peace Prize. He didn’t take sides, nor did he ask questions. He did what Canadians do best: keep the peace. World powers were divided on how to manage the crisis brought on by
Israel’s invasion of Egypt, and once again, Canada proved to be the middle power, standing for neutrality, compassion, and peace.
Keeping the peace is part of Canadian culture, as was seen in examples extending from Chretien’s backing the United State’s UN-supported invasion of Afghanistan, to his reluctance to join the United States in their non-UN backed invasion of Iraq in 2003. As a nation, we even mobilized in the streets by the thousands to protest the US invasion of Iraq.
So why is it that rather than promote peace by voting for the resolution, or at the very minimum, abstaining from the vote, we had to take sides? Although Canada’s foreign and domestic policies are not as unblemished as they may appear, at the very least, Canada stood for what it believed in. As the examples above show, Canadian foreign policy was shaped and formed by our own accord, and not contingent on our relationship with the United States. The disarray of the Israeli-Palestinian situation once again proves the United States will back Israel at all costs; yet a new light has been cast on Canadian foreign policy. It shows us how the people running our country have changed the course of our foreign policy, from one that reflected Canadian public opinion to one that blindly follows our friends to the South.
I propose that the next cabinet that runs this country returns Canada to its great status as a middle power — it’s what we do best.
