Author Selection

Monday, January 19, 2009

What Happened To The Political Animal?

It appears that in today's culture, association with politics places oneself into the lowest of the low in the hierarchy of civility. Politicians today are comparable to lawyers when it comes to public appreciation. However at one time in society being a politician was a civil duty; an act to show one's faith in culture. It was a goal set for children who were believed to be the brightest and best in their classes. This, however, has disappeared from our culture of present day, but why such hard feelings? What has caused this rift between civil duty and civility?

Up until the end of the 20th century, boys were being pushed into law, medicine, or business; then eventually politics would follow suit. It was for the most part the goal of every businessman to be in control of the situation which surrounded them. Politics was a way to improve business while improving society. Let this not lead one to think that politicians across time have always gone into politics for the good of their fellow citizens, because this was far from the case. Sir John A. Macdonald only joined the political arena to better his own law career and to try and gain greater business across the province. It was not until tireless years being an MP that Macdonald came to decide what was best for the nation was a nation apart from Britain.

Others, however, have taken to a different stroke when entering politics. Trudeau, for example, had always had his goals set on the political arena and bettering this nation. It was always his goal to repatriate the constitution and improve the lives of his fellow Canadians. He was a politician with a philosophical mind, which resulted in his "Just Society." Aside from those who planned great things, politics at one point attracted the best the nation had to offer. Lester B. Pearson would be the prime case; a man for all to look up to and a true citizen of example. But today there is no such drive of our brightest and strongest to enter the political arena, instead they disappear to other prospects of our neighbour to the south.

Canada is left with, as a result, the choice of dumb over dumber and the weak over the weakest. We no longer have politicians that are willing to take a chance for the greater good. We are instead resolved to watch a "leader" who does what the public tells him to do; a politician run by public opinion. There is no real solution to this problem. Certainly there is no way for every Canadian to change their perspective, otherwise issues of the past would have been easily resolved. Instead the question must be pondered, what happened to the political animal?

- Z.R. Nissen

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Canada and Peackeeping.

Suez and the myth.
In 1957 Lester B. “Mike” Pearson would win the Noble Peace Prize for his actions in diffusing a crisis in the Middle East for what would later be coined as the Suez Crisis. Pearson’s political maneuvering to get a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) would from there on out coin Canada as a “peacekeeping” nation. Canadian blue berets would participate in peacekeeping missions from Cyprus to Rwanda, gaining international recognition for their international diplomacy, rather than their military aggression. The myth of peacekeeping would grow in Canadian citizen’s minds and too their liking as for many, it helped define Canadians in many ways. It made them different then their war-driven southern, neighbours and it established Canadians as lovers – not fighters. However, Canada wasn’t always portrayed this way, as prior to 1956/57 – we were and idealistically a completely different nation.
South Africa.
Once upon a time a man by the name of Sir Wilfred Laurier, Prime Minister of Canada from 1896-1911, made a compromise with our British imperialist mother. It was 1899 and the British were going to war with a group of South African Dutch farmers known as Boers. This conflict would later become known as the South African war and some would even call it Britain’s Vietnam as it took nearly half a million British soldiers to defeat the poorly equipped, yet highly tactical Boers. In short, Laurier made a compromise with the British to send 1000 volunteers to South Africa to help fight the war (another 6000 volunteers would eventually end up going), in doing this Laurier hoped to keep French and Anglo relations steady. The French wanted nothing to do with what they saw as another one of Britain’s imperialist wars, and the French could relate more to the oppressed Boers than they could to their British counterparts. In contrast, the British loyalists living in Canada wanted Canada to make more of a contribution and wanted Canada to send more men – after all Britain was Canada’s mother, and when mom needed help – you damn well gave it to her. The war would end in 1902 with the Boers defeat and 89 Canadians killed in action. However, four Canadians would win the Victoria Cross for the service in South Africa and from here on out – Canada would play key roles in some of the world’s largest military conflicts.
WW1, WW2 and Korea.
In the First World War Canada would put over 600, 000 soldiers on the battlefields of Europe and 61, 000 would never return home. Canada would play “ready, aye ready” next to Britain, while succeeding in major battles such as Passchendaele and Vimy Ridge. The First World War, some have claimed, helped define Canada as a nation – whether or not this is true, I’ll leave it up to you. However, at a time when our population was a mere 8 million and 600, 000 of our citizens were overseas fighting; we were a nation of war, not a nation of peace or of peacemaking. Similarly, in World War Two 1.1 million Canadians would serve in the navy, army or air force and 45, 000 would never return home, while 54, 000 would return wounded. On August 19, 1942 5000 Canadians also participated in the disastrous raid of Dieppe, a small coastal off of France, in which a 1000 Canadian troops would be killed and nearly 2400 more captured. German submarines would sink ships off the cost of Nova Scotia and would perch themselves in the gulf of the St. Lawrence – we were fighting for our security and freedom. We were also a nation at war. We were fighting for the security of Canada – in World War Two, war became a home front reality for Canada and Canadians. It became a reality that if Britain fell, we could be next, we needed to protect ourselves and most importantly, we needed to fight. Finally in the Korean War (1950-53) almost 27, 000 Canadians served with 516 losing their lives and another 1000 coming home wounded. Canada was a nation of war, ready to fight and prepared to make the sacrifices that come with war. WW1, WW2 and Korea were all conflicts in which Canadian troops fought and in which some paid the ultimate price for. Peacekeeping had yet to exist in the mind of Canadians, but with the brilliant political actions of Lester Pearson in 1956 – something unprecedented happened. Canadians became afraid of conflict. Afraid of fighting for something they believe in.
Fast-Forward: Afghanistan.
Just over a 100 Canadians have died in Afghanistan since we decided to join the conflict. Approximately 2500 men and women are currently overseas fighting a war that most Canadians know nothing about, and until we do leave – Canadians are going to die and most who will watch on their TV will simply be enraged by another Canadian causality in another “useless” war as some have claimed. But the reason I think that Canadian citizens are so enraged at what’s going on in Afghanistan is not because they see at is merely “pointless,” but because they still have this notion that we our peacekeepers. That we are still the good old boys who run around in our blur berets hoping to stop the world from destroying itself one mission at a time. Now I’m not saying I agree with the war in Afghanistan, or that I disagree, I’m merely stating an observation. If the Canadian people want our soldiers to peace keep and not involve themselves with these conflicts that they see part as United States imperialism, then we better start spending on defense and security. Or if Canadians want more development in Afghanistan, then action needs to be taken and this notion of peacekeeping needs to be put on hold for the time being. I’ll admit, I’d rather a large Canadian peacekeeping contingent in Darfur (in my opinion we should have had one there years ago) than troops in Afghanistan and wouldn’t it be nice if we could put together a some kind of peacekeeping force through the United Nations to send to the Gaza Strip right now? But we can’t. We’re stuck in Afghanistan because our government is broke and refuses to spend any money on our military to properly fund our troops. Canada, its people and its leaders need to wake up and start to realize that this isn’t the glory days of blue berets and Noble Prizes – as much as I wish it was. This is a different kind of world. If we want to peace keep, we need well trained troops with the proper equipment to do the job with. Michael Ignatieff, the new leader of the Liberal party, summed this all up best in an article he wrote in 2003, “You can’t do any development, you can’t get any order in these societies unless you have combat power on the ground. This is the new reality we are in and this is the reality we have to do something in Canada to fix it and you can’t fix it by spending 1.1 percent of GDP on national defence…” [1] - Ty
[1] I took this quote from: J.L. Granastein. Whose War is it? (Toronto: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.,): 2007, 44.