Canada must do its bit
The world got a bit more dangerous in the last couple of days. Canadians should take notice because, like it or not, they too will find themselves living a little more dangerously in the years to come.
Earlier this week, Israeli warplanes struck deep inside Syria near Damascus to destroy a convoy that Israel believed was attempting to deliver high-end weaponry to Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Of course, Syria denounced the action as a breach of its sovereignty, but it’s unlikely Assad will retaliate in any serious way given his preoccupation with his own survival. Nonetheless, the strike highlights a growing concern that the Syrian civil war has left the country’s stockpile of chemical and biological weapons vulnerable. It’s not an unwarranted concern.
The downfall of Moammar Gadhafi saw good deal of the Libyan military’s arsenal fall into the hands of al-Qaida terrorist groups, including, as it seems, those who’ve made life miserable in Mali and the group that staged the recent hostage attack on the Algerian gas plant. The last thing Israel needs is for Hezbollah to benefit from another Libya-like bounty in the aftermath of Assad’s fall. If the Shiite fanatics on Israel’s northern border acquire even more deadly weaponry than they already have, well, another war in the Middle East is all but certain.
All this has implications for Canada, particularly given the Harper government’s stand-up-for-Israel policy. Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be hard pressed to deny help to Israel if it was requested. Israel has no heavy-lift aircraft like the C-17 Globemaster (so far as I know). We’re currently “lending” ours to the French military for their Mali campaign. Surely we’d extend the same loan to Israel, should it be needed.
In the aftermath of Canada’s departure from Afghanistan, the Harper government has been reluctant to deploy the country’s military in overseas conflicts, especially ones that require long-term commitments. We might send Joint Task Force 2 on specialized missions — members of JTF2 are reportedly in Mali — or offer training assistance, but Harper’s minions have deciphered the polls: Canadians are weary of the war on terrorism. Harper is good at riding the opinion poll wave and, apparently, has told senior military commanders not even to think about a combat role in Africa.
That attitude, if not the policy it reflects, may prove short-sighted. This isn’t to suggest Canadian intervention in Africa is currently warranted. Rather, it is to argue that in an increasingly dangerous world the prime minister should be advising Canadians — preparing them, if you will — as to why this country will likely be called upon to play a greater military role in international affairs, and why it must accept that role.
The United States remains the world’s pre-eminent hyperpower (despite the Obama administration’s tilt toward isolationism), with China coming up fast. But there is another tier of secondary powers — superpower associates, so to speak — capable of punching at or above their weight. This club includes countries such as Britain and France, among others (I’m not sure where to stick Russia anymore). This second-tier club has acquired new members in recent years, including India, Australia and, yes, Canada.
For decades Canada punched below its weight, but events of the past 10 years — the Afghanistan mission, in particular — should have prompted Canadians to acknowledge that the idea of Canada as a nation devoted to peacekeeping was a fairy tale of self-indulgence. Many, however, still refuse to wake up and smell the real world. They are unwilling to accept that thanks to its resource wealth, international stature and the relative decline of other powers, Canada is emerging as a significant player capable of exerting a greater military presence in the world.
Michael Ignatieff once referred to Canadians’ peaceable kingdom mindset as an indulgence in “naive narcissism.” In an essay entitled “Canada in the Age of Terror,” published in 2003, long before he served as Liberal leader, Ignatieff chastised those who believe Canada can isolate itself from Islamist terrorism and other forms of international disorder. The failure of so many states in the post-Cold War era has reached such proportions, he argued, that it has created a “crisis of order” for the world.
Like it or not, the only coherent response to this crisis may be the application of power to help these failing states (think Mali) get back on their feet. Obviously, as the singular superpower, the United States must carry the greater burden of any response to disorder. But Canada, Ignatieff wrote, must do its bit. Canadians cannot claim to believe in multilateralism and international institutions as the way to maintain order in the world if they are not prepared to defend those values and institutions, by force of arms if necessary. Canada must accept the burden of maintaining world order in ways commensurate with its military capabilities.
Harper would do well to persuade Canadians to this world view rather than cater to their lingering naive narcissism. That’s how a prime minister demonstrates leadership in a dangerous world.