What do Canadians think we ought to do in Lebanon?
Pollsters are claiming that many Canadians disagree with Prime Minister Harper’s support for Israeli aggression against Hezbollah. According to the Strategic Counsel poll in today’s Globe and Mail, 45% of Canadians polled do not approve of his support. The poll also claims that three quarters of Canadians want their country to remain neutral in this latest Middle East conflict.
I have my reservations about popular opinion polls. In fact, I am downright cynical.
Do I think Canadians fundamentally disagree with the Prime Minister? Do they support neutrality because it makes sense? No, on both counts.
The poll questions are abstractions. They do not provide clarity. In fact, I think they muddy the waters for many Canadians, reducing our present role in the world to the lowest common denominator of our history.
For the last decade, the form and function of our nation’s role in the world has remained static. Informally, Canadians cling to the vaporous idea of Canada as a nation of peacekeepers. Formally, there has not been a foreign policy review in this country since 1994.
If, for example, peacekeeping is going to be an essential form of Canadian foreign policy, then we must define the function of that peacekeeping in modern conflicts. We have not adapted Canadian foreign policy tools like peacekeeping for contemporary conflicts. As a result, Canadian foreign policy has not advanced and the public is not able to comprehend Canada’s potential role in the current conflict in the Middle East. We do not know what peacekeeping in Lebanon means.
Anachronistic notions have become a substitute for clear action. The Strategic Counsel poll is a stunning example. It does not reflect any clear options for Canada in the current conflict. The poll is a reaffirmation of Canadian foreign policy from the early 1990s, asking questions framed on the subjects of neutrality, consistency, peacekeeping, and support for either side of the conflict.
The current conflict in Lebanon does not have clearly defined sides. It challenges the meaning of neutrality, and changes too quickly to warrant consistency.
If this poll indicates anything, it is that we have an abstract way of discussing Canada’s role in the world. It is not informative, and as a gauge of popular opinion, it is irrelevant. Worse, it pulls our attention away from the more fundamental problem: that we really don’t know what we’re going to do in Lebanon.
———
This post was written by alevo
[tags]Israel, Lebanon, Canada, politics, foreign policy[/tags]
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:06 am
On the subject of what should be done in Lebanon, here are the poll results:
It’s true that this question does not provide clarity. It gives the illusion that there is an easy solution available to the international community to resolve this conflict: just send some troops there and things will sort themselves out. And it also seems to contradict other undercurrents in the poll, namely that Harper’s position was taken “[b]ecause it is in line with U.S. President George W. Bush and his administration”, which we’re told is what 53% of Canadians think.
But Bush says he also supports a peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon. From Forbes:
Why would Bush support this “new force”? Because the mandate of the force would be the same as Israel’s: disarmament of Hezbollah (there is already a UN security council resolution in effect demanding this – resolution 1559), which Hezbollah will certainly not accept.
In other words, we’re not talking peacekeeping, we’re talking about participation in another war. I wonder what the poll results would be to this question:
Should Canada, with the support of Israel and the United States, go to war in Southern Lebanon against Hezbollah along with other nations?
August 4th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Canadians are proud (or at least I hope they are) of their role as peacekeepers in the international community; I think if our PM would realize this and align himself respectively he would find a world of support behind him.
My PoliSci prof once compared International relations as a game of billiards; with different sized balls. The size of your balls related to the extent of you political/economic power. If you had small balls you better hid behind bigger balls or get yourself the hell out of the way.
Obviously, if you have the biggest balls you can pretty much make the rules.
Canada owns moderately sized balls (last time I say balls I promise), we will never write the rulebook on IR; but we are certainly recognized as a force in the international community.
If we can take stand by the UN and work to give it more power (can you say standing army) then maybe we can persuade the bigger players in this game that this could work out in their benefit as well (by distributing the cost of keeping the peace).
There is no easy answer to this conundrum; but I do feel that International solidarity in resolving this conflict is what is needed. Canada can be a vital player in bringing confidence back to the UN, all we need is a PM willing and able to lead Canada in shaping the future of international politics. Wow did that sound corny or what?
Unfortunately the US/Israel may have different ideas of how to manage conflict (see link below…)
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L24887074.htm