the rational post

Moral agency is one thing, and in that respect, I think Canada and its lawmakers are on stable political ground. We’ve managed to wade rather successfully through most of the world’s imperial conquests — themselves the products of myopic xenophobia and cultural fanaticism — owing in no small part to our growing multi-ethnic character. We’ve integrated ourselves into the global marketplace, albeit peripherally, and benefit from all of the economic prosperity that follows international trade. We’ve created a social environment that is, at least on its surface, equally accepting of race, religion and sexual orientation. And perhaps most notoriously, we’ve developed an awkward humility when called to speak, typically as a peace-broker, among our larger global peers.

What concerns me more is that despite all the opportunity in the world, most patriotic Canadians believe that our current status quo is an acceptable benchmark for the future. Nowhere does it say that change must necessarily be bad. Nowhere is it written that the nice guy (or girl) must finish near the middle of the pack. For all of the greatness that this country has demonstrated in its 140 short years of existence, I truly believe that the best is yet to come.

Consider what the world was like during that first fragile year of Canadian confederation, and how much our surroundings have changed. In Europe, Prussia, Italy and the Austro-Hungarian empires were just being established, setting the stage for The War to End All Wars. In South America, the War of the Triple Alliance was the bloodiest in Latin American history, claiming half of Paraguay’s population and reminding us all of the legacy of European conquest. In the Greater Orient, the Shogun returned political authority to the Emperor in Japan, the Suez Canal saw its first commercial naval passage, and Alaska was purchased from Russia for US$7.2 million. Closer to home, the British and French were busy monetizing their earlier imperial conquest, after fighting wars in Crimea, North Africa and China over control of important routes of trade. And in America, black men were first given the right to vote, only two short years after Lincoln was assassinated for fighting for their liberty in the south.

In the midst of all this action, our tiny British colony was (theoretically) set free, with all the privilege of belonging to the commonwealth and none of the responsibilities of sovereign adulthood. And so we’ve remained, a satellite state of our biggest economic and political partners, full of the riches of nature’s bounty but none of the will to use them to our own, independent, and even altruistic ends.

What specifically those ends should be is really anyone’s guess. I, for one, think we’ve sat and watched for long enough as our destiny passes us by. Going forward, we ought to formulate a new vision for the country, one which respects everything it took to get this far, but at the same time, reflects the role we could and should be playing in the greater theatre of humanity. There are some very great people in this country whose voices need to be heard, but whose insights are lost in the thunderous roar of partisan political propaganda and the shameful commercialization of the fourth estate.

Let’s just hope forums like these are able to identify and recognize these gifted Canadians, as we begin to discuss the true role of our nation in the many promising years ahead.

Comment by The Editor — October 28, 2006 @ 12:25 am

Global events may frame the agenda, but they’re only a snapshot of the world at a singular point in time. For any realistic image of the world as it can be, these types of questions must be asked, and answered, by anyone at all interested in the fate of their future generations.

Is Afghanistan really the issue? Or is it the Taliban? Terrorism? Broader anti-Americanism? Anti-capitalism? Poverty? Malnutrition? Mal-education? Post-imperial conquest? Resource scarcity? Strategic geography? Hobbesian war-mongering?

I don’t mean to confound a simple question which, I agree, ought to be answered. But decisions like these are meaningless if they don’t build toward some future socio-political ideal. The context I suggest is that of a country at a crossroads, with all the potential in the world but no coherent, tangible plan; whose foreign and domestic policy has floundered under the reigns of legislators who are more concerned with modifying and “tweaking” the status quo than examining our potential role as a leader and moderator in the great 21st century debate.

It was precisely this sort of eyes-on-the-ground approach that led us head-first into a Second World War, and will string us along in the years ahead — from flashpoint to geopolitical flashpoint — as an atavistic reaction to the existing global “agenda” instead of a proactive role in shaping it to some better, humanitarian end.

In Afghanistan, for instance, our mission is no longer Canadian. Our objective on the ground is no longer our own, and our opinion seems to count for very little when NATO’s generals are busy playing war on the ancient maps of the Middle East. To illustrate, Karzi’s visit to Canada barely registered among the back pages of the international press, other than to remind us of his need for practice in advance of the U.N. General Assembly in New York. Our role in the region may be valued, but our thoughts on the matter are peripheral at best.

If Canada had a more tangible vision for its role in the broader NATO alliance, the issue might be worth exploring once again. But until we can establish an identify for ourselves, and a shared vision for the world of the future, the only thing we’ll be reconstructing any time soon is our national hockey program.

Comment by The Editor — October 28, 2006 @ 12:28 am

Big problems can certainly be daunting, and even distracting and counterproductive, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be explored.

Take Iraq, for example, though I’m loath to reopen the debate. Rushing in to depose a Ba’athist tyrant, to both Bushes and most anyone with a shred of common sense, was a very simple, black and white decision. But when the challenge of post-war reconstruction emerged, it was chaos, not order, that followed. Not thinking far enough ahead, or heeding the warnings of those who better understood the complex history of the region, was the consequence of the same political reductionism you’re suggesting. In situations like this, shrinking down the picture can often be far more dangerous than asking the broader strategic questions up front.

More to your point, however, seeing beyond Desert Storm, beyond Iran-Iraq, beyond King Faisal, beyond the British mandate, beyond the Balfour Declaration, beyond Lawrence, beyond the fall of the Ottoman empire, beyond the conquest of the Mamluks, beyond the rushing Mongols, the Persian Abbasids, the Sunni Umayyids, and into the depths of the young Islamic world, can delay and distract us from ever making a choice. In my own life, I’m as guilty of this as anyone; of over-analyzing to the point of inaction. But as a country, sporting an eager and innovative collective consciousness, we should realize that our destiny is shaped by more than the next parliamentary cycle, and that a real plan for the country, regardless of what happens beyond our borders, should be a strategic priority today — both in theory and in action.

But to answer your question — and finally move beyond — I think our role in Afghanistan has been marginalized, and indeed compromised. This isn’t peacekeeping anymore, this is cracking the party (i.e Western Christendom’s) whip. But it does highlight our willingness to participate as a force for “peace” (used lightly) and good governance in the world today. And it also helps to remind us that the life we enjoy here at home is a function of decisions and actions that take place thousands of miles away.

In centuries past, this geographic reality was never the case. Your biggest threat was always your neighbour, and a few of his toughest friends. But the economic virtues of globalization have changed all that forever. They’ve opened the door both to expanded trade, and expanded terror. The same sea routes that have fueled the global marketplace have opened a direct path to the heart of the Western empire. The same internet that furnishes your holiday presents is being used to call fundamentalists into jihad. The same airplane that delivers those gifts is now a weapon in the growing arsenal of militant anti-capitalism.

The only question driving our decision to remain in Afghanistan should be one of both domestic and, more broadly, humanitarian calculus. Are innocent people dying because we’re there? Would fewer die if we weren’t? Will terror follow us home if we go, or will it only get worse if we stay?

I’m neither a historian, nor a military strategist, nor a sociologist by trade, but I know this country has a tremendous amount of promise. Bickering over war budgets and gay marriage and health care is pointless if it isn’t in the service of some greater “utopian” goal (again, used lightly). Our early constitution once provided that prospective framework, but even with all the tweaks and debates along the way, we’re still a 139 year old colony consistently struggling to find its way.

When Afghanistan is over, and the war is lost or won, what should we consider next? What “great issue” will we tackle when our troops finally return home? In my mind, the debate shouldn’t wait until it’s too late for change. The debate should begin right now.

Comment by The Editor — October 28, 2006 @ 12:31 am