|
|
Who’s Canadian Foreign Policy?
29 September 2012
(CRC)—While Canadian foreign policy has too often followed British initiatives, there have been rare instances where Canada did act in the best interests of the nation and on behalf of the sovereignty of nations against British imperial diktats. With the world situation now on the brink of a possible thermonuclear war confrontation and/or Weimar-style hyperinflation, Canada’s survival now depends on the adoption of a principled war-avoidance policy centred on Canada acting as a broker for a high technology-vectored world infrastructure development policy. There are two Canadian policy decisions that in this regard particularly stand out in the modern period. While they would not past the test for being perfect examples of republican foreign policy in the tradition of say a John Quincy Adams who had enunciated in the clearest terms, through the Monroe Doctrine, the fundamental difference between a republican foreign policy and an empire policy, it is none the less the case that Canadian policy decisions made during the 1956 Suez Crisis to denounce the Anglo-French-Israeli war axis and also the 2003 resolution not to join the “coercion of the willing” for war against the nation of Iraq did represent instances of attempts by Canada to break with British imperial doctrine. That 2003 decision by Prime Minister Jean Chretien certainly saved Canada from having to suffer the infamy of participation in an illegal war that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. Since 2006, one cannot find any clear examples of a non-British determined Canadian foreign policy. The George Soros-Michael Ignatieff advocacy of the right to invade sovereign nations on grounds of that nation’s human rights violations, known as the doctrine of the Right to Protect (R2P) , has been the modus operandi used to entrap Canada and other nations in the British Empire’s perpetual wars policy. It has been a British red herring from the get go. Canada’s participation in the recent illegal invasion of Libya and assassination of a sitting head of state has left over 70,000 innocent dead people in that country and undermined Canada’s foreign policy independence before the community of nations. The policy of shutting down the Canadian embassies first, in Syria, and then in Iran, gives Canada the dubious distinction of being the only other country having chosen this policy except Great Britain. Ottawa recently decided to return the Canadian Armed Forces to their old appellation of Royal Canadian Navy, Army, and Air Force. A directive was also issued to hang the picture of Queen Elisabeth in the entrance hall of all Canadian embassies. In the same vein it was the announced by British Foreign Minister William Hague, in Ottawa on September 24th , that henceforth Canada will share its embassies with those of Great Britain starting with the ones in Haiti and Burma. As laughable or irritable as these cosmetic changes may appear, they do signal a British rapprochement, similar to the uncomfortable position that the French experienced early in the last century known as the Entente Cordiale, the polite political wording for bending over. More importantly though, these changes are now being used as weapons of mass distraction, for purposes of animated discussions at Tim Hortons across the country, while the deadly business of a British-instigated nuclear thermonuclear confrontation using the Middle East powder keg as a new Balkans cockpit for World War III is now being actively planned by the British, with Canada having now joined the fray as an expendable junior partner. The real question is why not one word to prevent this from Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in Ottawa? Why not one line from the main British-linked press cartels in Canada? Citizens of Canada: The real question is not where is our embassy, but more to the point, where is our government ? |