• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
And here, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post, Michael Den Tandt, who has no trouble disdaining Mr Harper, shreds the arguments of Prof Peter Jones and his ilk and explains that the Conservative foreign policy is meeting the aspirations of "main street:"

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/01/02/michael-den-tandt-on-foreign-policy-tories-closer-to-main-street-than-critics-suggest/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
5178-NationalPostLogo3.jpg

On foreign policy, Tories closer to Main Street than critics suggest

Michael Den Tandt

January 2, 2014

Stephen Harper and his Conservative government have, it is a given, laid waste to Canada’s formerly sterling international reputation.

We know this because various and sundry former diplomats, led by the venerable Paul Heinbecker, have been telling us so for years. They’re backstopped in this by a cohort of thoughtful, stern-minded academics, most recently the University of Ottawa’s Peter Jones writing in Thursday’s Globe and Mail, saying more or less the same thing: Harper and foreign minister John Baird are blinkered Visigoths, stomping about the world stage with their good-versus-evil, black-versus-white world view, shattering the fine china of international diplomacy as they go.

This portrait is eagerly embraced by the opposition parties, of course, because it helps create ideological distance between them and the government — a logical necessity if change (beyond putting new behinds in old seats) is ever to be embraced.

But then along comes something like the New York and Copenhagen-based Reputation Institute’s list of the world’s 50 “most reputable” countries — an online survey of 27,000 respondents from across the G8 — to give that thesis a hard shake. The G8 includes the United States, the U.K., France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Russia. If this sampling, published last summer in Forbes Magazine, is to be believed, Canada’s international reputation is in fine health. Indeed, we’ve topped the “global reputation” survey for the past three years.

What’s truly intriguing is the list of countries with which Canada shares top billing. In second place in 2013 was Sweden; after that in descending order came Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, The Netherlands and Austria. Spain ranked 18th last year; the U.S., 22nd and China 44th. The countries in Canada’s immediate peer group, in other words, include the very northern European social democracies with whom Harperland is often disparagingly compared by Canadian critics on the Left. How can this, be if our reputation abroad is in such a terrible state?

No single opinion survey can be the be-all-end-all, obviously. There’s popular opinion and there’s elite opinion. In terms of how we get along globally, the views of decision makers from a given foreign country arguably matter more than those on the street. The global diplomatic corps may indeed hold Canada in lower regard now than it did, say, 15 years ago. We know this to be the case at the United Nations, where Harper and Baird have fallen into a pattern of finger-wagging or official absence.

Where an annual snapshot such as the Reputation Institute’s can be helpful, though, is in providing an anecdotal reality check of some of the more extreme assumptions emanating from the Harper-hating half of Partisan Canada, or Partisan Nation, to borrow the current handy convention. Partisan Nation exists primarily in cyberspace. It reaches full flower on Twitter. Its membership spans all federal political parties. Members share a barely sane belief in the sanctity of their chosen political heroes, and an equally bug-eyed capacity for demonizing opponents and their opinions. In this mostly imaginary world Justin Trudeau is the shiny pony and Stephen Harper Beelzebub himself.

The irony: Liberals and New Democrats who trade in demonology, caricaturing Conservatives as Rush Limbaughs in hockey sweaters, are themselves engaging in “black-and-white” dogmatism. In the process they habitually blind themselves to the areas where the Tories are strong, which impedes their ability to counter. It’s this intellectual inwardness that broke the Liberal party’s back from 2004 on, and now threatens to do the same to the New Democratic Party’s great beachhead of 2011. Partisans simply cannot believe that not all reasonable, good people on Main Street grasp the singular brilliance and inevitability of their worldview. So they keep repeating it.

Surely the starting point for any useful analysis of political reality should be, well, reality. Among people I bump into in daily life, on those rare occasions when foreign policy comes up at all, most agree with Harper and Baird that Canada should support democratic Israel and oppose theocratic Iran; agree with them that Chinese state-owned companies’ interest in the resource sector should be met with deep scrutiny and caution; agreed with their decision to join in the 2011 Libya campaign but keep clear of any possible military engagement in Syria last year; thought the early Liberal and NDP opposition to Canada’s involvement in the Afghan war was daft; but wholeheartedly endorsed the eventual decision to pull Canadian soldiers out, with the last expected to leave in March. Paul Heinbecker, declaiming from the op-ed pages of the Globe and Mail or the airwaves of the CBC, is a remote voice indeed.

Bottom line? The selling point of Harper’s Conservatives has never been their personalities, his included. The party wins because it provides policy that millions of Canadians, albeit often with nose pinched between thumb and index finger, consider to be the least bad alternative, and that millions more simply agree with. For government critics to stubbornly insist this isn’t true, whether in foreign policy or another area, is not noble. It’s a recipe for another Tory victory in 2015.


Consider the absolute truth in that last paragraph again: "it [the CPC] provides policy that millions of Canadians, albeit often with nose pinched between thumb and index finger, consider to be the least bad alternative, and that millions more simply agree with. Despite the less than sterling grammar (he should have said "and with which millions more simply agree") Mr De Tandt is spot on: Prime Minister Harper, unlike Paul Heinbecker and Peter Jones, understands that most Canadians want to support a spunky little liberal democracy that is surrounded and threatened by 100,000 medieval barbarians and most Canadians agree that we should show Iran our utter, complete contempt for its bullying and threats and utter disregard for the natural, fundamental rights of people.

I always know when the Conservatives are setting out clear, principled, sensible foreign policy: Paul Heinbecker's knickers are in a knot.
 
One of the problems with tying our diplomat stuff to closely with various industries abroad such as mining is your rep hangs on the actions of people you have little control over. Canadian mines have had from very good to very poor track records overseas, promoting a project run by a company with an iffy track record may come back to bite us. I don't hold out hope that this government would take the time to do an indepth review of the companies and people involved in a project prior to promoting it.
 
Slightly  :off topic:


I'm posting this here, rather than starting a new topic, because Justice Ndon's comment, in a decision, about foreign policy being (or should be) "forbidden territory" for judges rings true for me.

I am interested in member's opinions about this article which suggests that Prime Minister Harper is trying to reshape the SCC by appointing judges who appear to favour "judicial restraint."

Mods may want to split this off into a new thread if it becomes a real topic rather than just a minor tangent.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Slightly  :off topic:


I'm posting this here, rather than starting a new topic, because Justice Ndon's comment, in a decision, about foreign policy being (or should be) "forbidden territory" for judges rings true for me.

I am interested in member's opinions about this article which suggests that Prime Minister Harper is trying to reshape the SCC by appointing judges who appear to favour "judicial restraint."

Mods may want to split this off into a new thread if it becomes a real topic rather than just a minor tangent.

So what, really, did the PM do that previous PMs didn't. Like Senate appointments, it's his prerogative who gets the nod, same as it's always been.

All I can see here are a bunch of old boys\ girls club types bellyaching because they didn't have one of their cronies appointed.

A deeper look, which I have no interest in doing, may even show that the vast majority of dissenters are, shall we say, liberal thinkers.

Maybe it's time for a dissenting opinion. One that doesn't jive with the other SC types that believe it's their job, not parliament's, to make laws instead of just interpreting them.

Unless we want to go down the same road as the US, where SC types are vetted by everyone who holds any type of political office, before they are appointed or rejected, we have the system we have.

The PM used it to his, supposed, advantage. So what?
 
The article points out that the SCC maintains its independence and authority despite the presence of justices previously appointed by Harper.  If Nadon is less notable as the article claims, it is unlikely his arguments are going to sway the others in a closely-divided decision.  Ultimately, the SCC's role is to be a corrector, not an originator.

Mostly it seems the legal establishment is in a snit because Nadon isn't one of the legal establishment's star attractions.

Politically, this remark is very revealing: "I feel very strongly that the orderly progression and evolution of the law requires a strong court – a court that’s capable and willing to demonstrate leadership. I think this appointment unquestionably weakens the court."  People who want to use every other institution - SCC included - to thwart Harper's parliament are annoyed.

I "feel very strongly" that the law should evolve by legislation, and the court's leadership should be limited to overturning pieces of law that are unlawful.  Lawyers may feel differently, but they might need to remind themselves their profession exists to serve, not to rule.
 
I, too, "feel very strongly"  that the role of Judges should be simply to determine if a given set of actions are legal. ie. they conform to the encodified laws of the relevant jurisdiction (federal, provincial, municipal).

Fairness and justice should not be their demesne.  That is entirely the demesne of Parliament.  If the outcome of the trial is not perceived to be fair or just, despite the legalities, then the issue should be taken before Parliament
 
Judges are not arbitrators.  Juries and Parliamentarians are arbitrators.

Judges may be arbitrators but then, so may Professional Engineers, if the parties in dispute agree to be bound by their judgments.



 
Brad Sallows said:
...

I "feel very strongly" that the law should evolve by legislation, and the court's leadership should be limited to overturning pieces of law that are unlawful.  Lawyers may feel differently, but they might need to remind themselves their profession exists to serve, not to rule.


I agree, but I assert that parliament and our provincial legislatures and city councils often, far too often, even regularly, craft laws that are, themselves, "unlawful" and unconstitutional. I want a strong active court that is happy to throw parliament's laws out and demand new ones. I agree with the ways judges are appointed now; I do not want even a whiff of the American system which politicizes justice, in my opinion. Only qualified lawyers are nominated, our system sees to that, and once appointed our judges are independent, and we need that to balance our legislators.
 
Trying to nail down a meaningful and agreed definition of "activism" is always the most difficult part of this discussion.

If "activist" means "overturns unconstitutional laws", then I support activism.

If "activist" means "applies personally held political beliefs and sociopolitical ideology as decision factors", then I do not support activism.

If "activist" means "interprets law to create new entitlements and obligations", then I do not support activism.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Trying to nail down a meaningful and agreed definition of "activism" is always the most difficult part of this discussion.

If "activist" means "overturns unconstitutional laws", then I support activism. Agreed!

If "activist" means "applies personally held political beliefs and sociopolitical ideology as decision factors", then I do not support activism. Agreed, again!

If "activist" means "interprets law to create new entitlements and obligations", then I do not support activism. ? ... not so sure. Definitely judges cannot create any financial entitlements or obligations, ever, because to do so would be to impose taxes and only parliament, only the HoC, may do that. But the courts can, and have, pretty consistently since the 1830s, pushed parliaments (in Westminster, Ottawa, Canberra, etc) to extend the franchise and to broaden the scope of individual rights; and that's a good thing.
 

 
E.R. Campbell said:
I agree, but I assert that parliament and our provincial legislatures and city councils often, far too often, even regularly, craft laws that are, themselves, "unlawful" and unconstitutional. I want a strong active court that is happy to throw parliament's laws out and demand new ones. I agree with the ways judges are appointed now; I do not want even a whiff of the American system which politicizes justice, in my opinion. Only qualified lawyers are nominated, our system sees to that, and once appointed our judges are independent, and we need that to balance our legislators.

More to the point that they will craft laws without giving it careful thought and process, leading to many poor result or unintended consequence. The CPC hurt themselves with the haste they used to change things and claiming it was a crisis. So remind me when a government hasn't claimed a crisis is happening? 
 
Jeffrey Simpson gets it mostly, but only very grudgingly, right in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/no-room-for-nuance-in-harpers-mideast/article16373065/#dashboard/follows/
gam-masthead.png

No room for nuance in Harper’s Mideast

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Jan. 18 2014

Ever since 1947, when Canada voted at the United Nations in favour of the partition of Palestine to create the state of Israel, every Canadian government has supported that state.

Liberals and Progressive Conservatives anchored Canada’s Middle East policy in Israel’s legitimacy, admired its democratic system, cheered on the country in three wars, developed economic ties (including a free-trade agreement) and relished the many ties of kith and kin linking the two countries. These governments and all Canadians knew the immense contributions Jews had made to Canada in every walk of life, and of the Jewish community’s attachment to Israel.

These governments, while never wavering in their support for Israel, nonetheless tried to understand the complexities of the world’s most tangled region. They offered help, where possible and where wanted, to all sides (except avowedly terrorist groups) in the region’s enduring political conflicts, bearing in mind that Canada’s influence there has always been slight.

None, however, has gone as far in embracing Israel as Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government – to the point of distancing Canada from traditional allies in the United States and Europe, abandoning even the pretense of balance and nuance, and contributing to Canada’s defeat (for the first time) in seeking a seat on the UN Security Council (a seat won the next time by Australia, whose governments had also been strong supporters of Israel but not as abrasively as the Harper government).

Canada’s government is now the most undiluted, fervent supporter of Israel, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in the entire world. The Harper government would wear that description as a badge of honour, and Mr. Harper accordingly will be given a grand welcome during his week-long visit.

Why has this government gone beyond all previous Canadian ones in supporting Israel?

It is something visceral and personal for Mr. Harper. His deep commitment does not spring from personal experience or considerable reading about the Middle East and its history – indeed, while he was leader of the opposition, foreign diplomats in Ottawa who managed to secure a meeting (often difficult) with him were struck by how little interested he was in any international issues.

Mr. Harper sees the world, like Canadian domestic affairs, in rather Manichean terms, wherein the forces of good and evil are arrayed against each other, with threatening enemies everywhere, prepared to pounce on any weakness. The forces of good are democracies, especially of the Anglo-Saxon variety and a few others, including Israel. The forces of darkness and instability are other kinds of political systems.

Mr. Harper expressed that Manichean world view when speaking to the Negev dinner in Toronto last month. Israel, he said, is “a light of freedom and democracy in what is otherwise a region of darkness.” That dichotomy – light versus an entire “region of darkness” – is of course how many Israelis see their country, a democracy surrounded by enmity and instability.

Such a world view, applied to the Middle East, leaves no room for nuance, balance or understanding of complexity, just a dualistic clash between good and evil, progress and darkness, stability and danger. Of course, this is not how other Western countries behave in the Middle East, including those who strongly support Israel. But it is now Canada’s way.

And then there is the domestic political angle, which permeates and shapes almost everything Mr. Harper’s government does. Even before this visit, the government was sending e-mails to supporters heralding the trip and alerting them to further messages.

With steely purpose, the government has tied its Middle East policy to a domestic political appeal to Jewish voters. The majority used to support the Liberals but many are now Conservatives because of the importance attached to Canada’s policy on this one issue: Israel.

This positioning has been hugely appreciated by Jewish voters, but also by evangelical Christian faiths, many of which hold a favourable theological view of Israel. This has proven valuable to the Conservatives in fundraising at election time, as their coalition contains disproportionate numbers of evangelical voters.


I believe that much of Prime Minister Harper's ~ the CPC's foreign policy is based on principle. I believe our former, incorrect policy towards China was principled even as it acted against out own, vital, national interests. I believe our policies towards Sri Lanka and Israel are still ground in principle because we can afford to stand on principle where they are concerned. Our policies towards America, China and Europe are, more or less, grounded in reality, as they must be.

But you may rest assured that the national commentariat, the "chattering classes," and the Laurentian Elites, like Simpson, will never give Harper and Baird credit for either principle or pragmatism ~ instead they will trot out weak minded fools and trained Trudeauite seals like Paul Heinbeceker to weep and wail about "balance." They will call for "balance" when principle is appropriate and principle when national interests are at stake. It's why our foreign and defence policies were emasculated between 1967 and 1984.

I disagree with Jeffrey Simpson's characterization of Prime Minister Harper's (and Foreign Minister Baird's) views as Manichean, I think they are far more nuanced than Simpson imagines; but I do agree that the appeal to the large, strong, reliable Jewish (and Tamil, in another context) vote is more than just coincidental.
 
The (anticipated) counterpoint ~ that Prime Minister Harper's Middle East policy is contrary to Canada's interests traditions of "being “multilateral” and an “honest broker” " ~ is made in the Toronto Star (where else?) by Tony Burman, former head of Al Jazeera English and CBC News, who teaches journalism at Ryerson University.

See:T Time for Canada, Israel to stop living in fantasy world ... Canada's reputation in significant parts of world will sink ever lower as a result of PM Stephen Harper's vanity tour of Israel, writes Tony Burman.

Burman concludes his diatribe by saying: "It is time for both countries to abandon their respective fantasy worlds. Israelis should work hard this week to ignore most everything they hear from Canada’s prime minister. And Canadians should work equally hard to wrestle back Canada’s foreign policy debate from Harper and his crowd. For both sides, time is truly running out."  :-\

 
E.R. Campbell said:
-the Toronto Star
-former head of Al Jazeera English
-CBC News,
-teaches journalism at Ryerson University.

Any one of these alone is enough to disqualify the individual as a serious or unbiased commentator, but all four together? Wow.
 
Thucydides said:
Any one of these alone is enough to disqualify the individual as a serious or unbiased commentator, but all four together? Wow.


I disagree, any of the four gets him a "voice," and probably should. And while we may, as I do, reject his tone and his content, more people trust him, and what he says, than trust me and believe what I say.
 
An interesting debate has opened in the Twitterverse between respected journalist David Akin and Jason Kenney, federal Minister of Employment, Social Development & Multiculturalism.

Mr Akin suggests, in his column that Prime Minister Harper may have gone too far, is breaking new ground, in how he defines anti-Semitism in his speech (today) in the Israeli Knesset.

Minister Kenney responds that Prime Minister Harper is, in fact, just using the Ottawa Protocol which was negotiated in 2010 by some 50 countries using the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights' definition of antisemitism ... thus it is an 'established,' internationally agreed set of examples of conduct that constitute anti-Semitism.

The Laurentian Elites, at least in so far as Prof Michael Behiels of the University of Ottawa speaks for them (and he is of that ilk), will be up in arms, declaring that the end of Canada s we know it is near because prime Minister harper takes a strong stand for Israel.
 
I see the PM announced 60+Million for the Palestinians. The CBC was wailing long and hard about how this is a reduction of about 50%.....poor Palestinians......
 
Meanwhile, from today's Telegraph

UN trying to raise 4 BUKP for Syria

2013

US          700 MUKP
UK          230 MUKP
Ger        200 MUKP
Kuwait    200 MUKP
Canada  110 MUKP  :cdn:
Japan      75 MUKP
S. Arabia  61 MUKP
Norway    46 MUKP
UAE          44 MUKP
Australia  43 MUKP
Quatar      40 MUKP
Sweden    34 MUKP
Denmark  33 MUKP

Canadians ponying up along with the Arabs, the Anglosphere and the Scandinavians as the heavy-hitters in providing aid.

Is that buying influence?  The great Whig policy of paying other people to fight your wars.
 
Kirkhill said:
Meanwhile, from today's Telegraph

UN trying to raise 4 BUKP for Syria

2013

US          700 MUKP
UK          230 MUKP
Ger        200 MUKP
Kuwait    200 MUKP
Canada  110 MUKP  :cdn:
Japan      75 MUKP
S. Arabia  61 MUKP
Norway    46 MUKP
UAE          44 MUKP
Australia  43 MUKP
Quatar      40 MUKP
Sweden    34 MUKP
Denmark  33 MUKP

Canadians ponying up along with the Arabs, the Anglosphere and the Scandinavians as the heavy-hitters in providing aid.

Is that buying influence?  The great Whig policy of paying other people to fight your wars.


And a damned fine policy it was, and still is, too!
harumph_by_omny87-d5yrrkm.jpg

                                                                                Harumph!
 
Lawrence Martin pokes a stick into the Canada-USA relationship, specifically the Harper-Obama (administrations) relationship, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/we-can-expect-canada-us-friction-to-grow/article16413031/?cmpid=rss1&click=dlvr.it#dashboard/follows/
gam-masthead.png

We can expect Canada-U.S. friction to grow

LAWRENCE MARTIN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Jan. 21 2014

What Stephen Harper does in Israel this week won’t get much notice in the United States. But the differences between Washington and Ottawa on the Middle East are a contributing factor to a relationship that’s in disrepair.

The Middle East? Why clash there? As observers such as former Canadian ambassador Derek Burney are asking, does this region really matter as much any more? It used to be vital because of its vast oil reserves and the Suez Canal. Today, the United States is well on the road to becoming energy self-sufficient, Canada has its own abundant fossil-fuel supplies and the Suez is no longer the critical transportation corridor it was.

But instead of Asia becoming a new focal point, Secretary of State John Kerry seems fixated on the Middle East. Washington takes exception to what it sees as Ottawa’s reflexively toadyish approach to Israel and reflexively hostile approach to Iran. These splits add to the sizable bilateral friction already apparent over the oil sands, the Keystone XL pipeline, Washington’s Buy America laws and other issues.

Countering the position of U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird issued repeated warnings not to trust the Iranian regime’s stated intent to reach a deal on its nuclear capacities. But a deal was reached, temporary though it may be.

Undeterred, Mr. Baird banged heads with Mr. Kerry last week on Keystone. Following Mr. Harper’s declaration that he wouldn’t take no for an answer on the pipeline, Mr. Baird said that Ottawa would like an answer right away, yes or no. Mr. Kerry replied that Canada will get a response when one is ready.

The Conservatives have a good case on Keystone and are right to be irked by the interminable delay. But looking at their own dealings, they might understand how politics intrudes upon the timing of decisions. Wasn’t it John Baird who promised as far back as 2008 that emission regulations on the Canadian oil and gas sector were on the way? It’s 2014 and those regulations – something Washington would like to see – are still pending.

The Conservatives no longer seem very concerned about irritating the Obama administration. They were always hesitant to take on the Democratic messiah because of his great popularity in Canada, but things have changed.

Conservatives sense that the President is wounded and take a measure of pleasure in it. Mr. Obama’s health reform rollout was a disaster. Security leaks about surveillance of Americans have embarrassed his administration. Now a critical book by Mr. Obama’s former defence secretary, Robert Gates, is attracting lots of attention.

Mr. Gates portrays Vice-President Joe Biden as an amusing motor-mouth who gets most everything wrong, and criticizes Mr. Obama’s team for frequently challenging the word of the Pentagon’s senior military leadership. Here, it is Mr. Gates who may be wrong. Has he checked the generals’ track record over the years? How about Don Rumsfeld’s Pentagon on Iraq? Or Robert MacNamara’s Pentagon on Vietnam? Or John F. Kennedy’s military advisers urging him to bomb Cuba off the map during the missile crisis? Or Dwight Eisenhower, a general himself, issuing a warning to beware the motives of the Pentagon? If history bears a lesson, it is that Mr. Obama should indeed be wary of the counsel of the Defence Department.

The new tensions in the Canada-U.S. relationship are a sign that Mr. Harper and Mr. Obama are losing patience with one another. Given their broad philosophical and personal differences, it’s a wonder they’ve gotten along as decently as they have.

If he checks Mr. Gates’s book, the Prime Minister will see that the President’s men can be quite vindictive. If the President checks the Prime Minister’s record, he will see that Mr. Harper can be, too. Bilaterally, things could very well get worse before they get better.


First, I agree, broadly, with Lawrence Martin on two points:

    1. The Pentagon, Eisenhower's "military industrial complex," writ large, has a pretty poor track record since, say, 1950, but that's a minor point; and

    2. Given the deep philosophical differences between Prime Minister Harper and President Obama, and their closest advisors, then "bilaterally, things could very well get worse before they get better."

Second, our relationship with the US is the single most critical thing in Canada's foreign, trade and economic policies. But, as someone else pointed out, recently, in commenting on the fact that the US has been without an ambassador to Ottawa for a very only time, the relationship is so close, so big, and so bureaucratic ~ bound together by masses of rules and regulations ~ that it chugs along happily with little regard to who is in the White House or 24 Sussex Drive, much less who is in what embassies. While relations between governments, per se, might get worse, the overall good, productive relationship is in little danger.

Third, and this is a quibble, the Middle East is still a "flashpoint" and the wrong war there (say, one between Syria and Israel) could lead to a broader conflict that could spread to neighbouring regions. But Canada is a very, very minor player ~ despite the value Mr Harper gives to Israel for both ideological and partisan, domestic political reasons. Our "role" in the Middle East was always exaggerated: it began in the 1956 when Lester Pearson played an important role in defusing tensions between Britain (Anthony Eden's government) (and France), on one hand and America (the Eisenhower administration), on the other, that really did threaten the unity of the West. The Middle East was merely a theatre, a stage on which Pearson played a vital role as a peacemaker between allies ~ UN peacekeeping was, then as now, a sideshow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top