Go back

Petty, puritanical, and obtuse, Canada’s foreign policy is morally wrong

In 2010, Stephen Harper took the stage at the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism conference in Ottawa and pledged, in no uncertain terms, Canada’s unshakable support for Israel: “the easy thing to do is simply to just  go along [. . .] with this anti-Israel rhetoric. [. . .] There are, after all, a lot more votes [. . .] in being anti-Israeli than taking a stand. But, as long as I am Prime Minister, [. . .] Canada will take that stand, whatever the cost.”

Consistent with the self-aggrandizing nature of his comments, Harper’s foreign and domestic policies have been rooted in a political and moral certainty that he has never bothered to substantiate. While opacity from this government is nothing new, it is dangerous when used to prop up an increasingly inflexible backbone that reduces incredible complexities to a series of black and white puppet shows. Exercising pragmatism has been abandoned by the Tories in favour of a frankly fundamentalist approach to government.

Harper’s policy in the Middle East is threatening to completely erode decades of Canada’s carefully cultivated persona in global politics as a humanitarian, independent, and neutral arbiter of political and moral crises. John Baird’s comments in Jerusalem reiterated this stance, claiming that the Palestinian Authority (PA) had made a “huge mistake” by attempting to bring allegations of Israeli war crimes to the International Criminal Court, an organization Canada played a key role in founding. 

Israel’s history has been scoured by acts of Arab aggression, which have fuelled its hawkish foreign policies. So while we criticize Israel, it is impossible to divorce the country’s collective trauma from its current-day politics.

At the same time, Baird’s assertion that “the great struggle of our generation is terrorism — one that Israel faces on the front lines” isn’t so simple. The greatest threat Israel faces today is from a crippled Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah, all of whom are currently preoccupied with combating ISIS forces. However, a large part of the enduring regional hatred towards Israel has much to do with its apartheid policies directed towards the Palestinian people.

Harper’s foreign and domestic policies have been without an affirmed political and moral certainty.

It would be exhausting to list the ways in which Israel actively persecutes Palestinians on a daily basis, but it is stunning, and only serves to stoke the fires of regional discord. Benjamin Netanyahu’s latest ploy has been to, once again, freeze the delivery of taxes collected on behalf of the PA, an act that the PA ambassador to the UN labeled “blatant theft.” The action was further denounced by the Israeli president and US State Department. Yet Canada remains unmoved.

Our stated international agenda is in support of Israel’s right to live in peace with its neighbours within “secure boundaries,” while recognizing Israel’s right to assure its own security by way of “necessary measures.” Within this position, the Conservative government officially acknowledges the Palestinian right to self-determination within a territorially contiguous state.

However, Israel continues to rapidly build settlements on disputed territory, diminishing Palestinian attempts at creating a state — a war crime, according to the Rome Statute that Canada signed in 2000. According to Baird, such actions are not unilateral or detrimental to peace. Instead, attempts by the PA to bring such actions to the world’s attention, while opening up Hamas to prosecution over war crimes (who are, as noted, an enemy of Israel) cross a “red line.”

It is utterly embarrassing that Canada is represented by asinine claims to absolute morality while sporting an abhorrent human rights record. We cannot pretend to be independent arbiters, nor can we play any meaningful role in the Middle East if we take two steps back for every step history takes forward. Who would trust that record?

Was this article helpful?
0
0

Leave a Reply

Block title

What does it mean when doctors ask “are you sexually active?”

By: Noeka Nimmervoll, Staff Writer Content warning: References of sexual activities.  The wrinkling of paper underneath you as you sit atop the patient’s table. A cold stethoscope against your skin. The question, “are you sexually active?” These are all part of a regular doctor’s appointment, but one can be exclusionary if it’s being asked by someone who has a narrow and heteronormative understanding of sex. In the wide spectrum of human intimacy and relationships, what counts as sexually active? It seems the definition is different for everyone, and this reality is not reflected in a doctor’s checklist. For health-care to be truly inclusive, doctors should be more specific about what they mean when they ask, “are you sexually active?” Doctors ask about sexual activity ultimately with the...

Read Next

Block title

What does it mean when doctors ask “are you sexually active?”

By: Noeka Nimmervoll, Staff Writer Content warning: References of sexual activities.  The wrinkling of paper underneath you as you sit atop the patient’s table. A cold stethoscope against your skin. The question, “are you sexually active?” These are all part of a regular doctor’s appointment, but one can be exclusionary if it’s being asked by someone who has a narrow and heteronormative understanding of sex. In the wide spectrum of human intimacy and relationships, what counts as sexually active? It seems the definition is different for everyone, and this reality is not reflected in a doctor’s checklist. For health-care to be truly inclusive, doctors should be more specific about what they mean when they ask, “are you sexually active?” Doctors ask about sexual activity ultimately with the...

Block title

What does it mean when doctors ask “are you sexually active?”

By: Noeka Nimmervoll, Staff Writer Content warning: References of sexual activities.  The wrinkling of paper underneath you as you sit atop the patient’s table. A cold stethoscope against your skin. The question, “are you sexually active?” These are all part of a regular doctor’s appointment, but one can be exclusionary if it’s being asked by someone who has a narrow and heteronormative understanding of sex. In the wide spectrum of human intimacy and relationships, what counts as sexually active? It seems the definition is different for everyone, and this reality is not reflected in a doctor’s checklist. For health-care to be truly inclusive, doctors should be more specific about what they mean when they ask, “are you sexually active?” Doctors ask about sexual activity ultimately with the...