Truth is often a casualty in politics. Thankfully, there’s Yves Engler—Canada’s version of Noam Chomsky—to set the record straight when political spin morphs into historical fact. Engler, who was born in Vancouver, has written a new book called Lester Pearson’s Peacekeeping—The Truth May Hurt, which dispenses with all that hogwash about Canada’s Nobel Prize–winning prime minister actually being a man of peace.

”As I’ve noted elsewhere, [Stephen] Harper militarized foreign policy, supported Israeli crimes, undermined Latin American democracy and weakened important international agreements,” Engler writes in his book. “Nonetheless, Pearson was culpable for more death and destruction.”

You can hear Engler make the case tomorrow night at 7 p.m. at W2 Media Cafe (111 West Hastings) when he speaks at a Vancouver book launch.

Engler relies in part on the research of another Vancouver-born historian, John Price, whose ’Orienting’ Canada: Race, Empire and the Transpacific 1907–1956blew the lid off how Canadian officials supported U.S. preparations for the deployment and use of biological weapons in the Korean War.

And who was Canada’s external-affairs minister at the time? None other than Lester B. Pearson.

In his sixth book, Engler also demonstrates how Pearson enabled the massive U.S. bombing campaigns on North Vietnam.

The International Control Commission for Vietnam was created with members from Canada, Poland, and India to enforce the Geneva Accords to unify the country in a national election. Pearson thwarted its work by recognizing the government of South Vietnam, which refused to go along with allowing a vote.

Pearson also played a major role in ensuring that UN Security Council members have a veto, which has crippled the organization’s capacity to prevent bloodshed.

So why should we care today about a revisionist look at Lester B. Pearson, who left office in 1968? Because he’s being held up as a paragon of virtuous foreign policy by both federal Liberals and New Democrats who seek to supplant Harper. Do Bob Rae and Tom Mulcair really want to copy a guy whom Chomsky has referred to as a war criminal?

Speaking of foreign policy, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was in Ottawa mumbling about the need for F-35 fighter jets. But the Harperites are claiming that they’re reconsidering their plan to spend billions upon billions of your money on these planes.

The Conservative budget is coming out tomorrow. Expect deep cuts to public services. All this Harperite spin of cancelling the F-35 purchase is likely just a smokescreen to sugar-coat the other “spending efficiencies”.

Maybe it’s time to put Yves Engler on the case to tell the truth to Canadians.

—Charlie Smith, straight.com, March 28, 2012

(View Original)

(Close)

This short book, or elongated essay, concerns the political attributes of one of Canada’s more revered politicians, Lester Bowles Pearson. As with Yves Engler’s other writing on Canada and the truth behind its role in the broader world of foreign policy, The Truth May Hurt will rattle a few perceptions about his role as a ‘peacekeeper’—as his other books have about Canada’s role as a ‘peacekeeper’ nation. The book is well written and concise, with strong references to support the main ideas. Generally, the overall theme is that Lester Pearson is not the man generally perceived by the public. Instead, he widely supported global imperialist projections, supported corporate capitalism over democracy, and supported Israel above all else for the Middle East.

Following Pearson’s career, and he was a career diplomat/politician, spans a wide range of Twentieth Century topics.

Cold War, UN, NATO, and Israel

Indirectly, Pearson within his role in government supported the fascist side (at this time the nascent German Nazi military) in the civil war in Spain. After the Second World War, where due credit can be given to the Canadian soldiers slugging it out against their German counterparts in the Low Countries, Canada under Pearson’s tutelage at various government posts supported the post war colonial and Cold War alignments.

Several topics highlight this. The UN was seen as a way to “solidify the status quo, not democratize it.” Canada supported the U.S. desire to have veto power in the Security Council. Pearson was one of the prime supporters and shapers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), supposedly a defensive measure against highly overstated threats of Soviet military advances.

Pearson saw NATO reaching out to the Pacific Ocean and the Middle East. The end result, from Pearson’s real motivation is what we see now, with NATO in Afghanistan, Libya, the former Yugoslavia, and threatening other regions. NATO’s real purpose was a capitalist reaction to the growing socialism in post war Europe, a means to tie the European states together under U.S. military and economic powers.

Canada, as witnessed by another well researched Yves Engler work, Canada and Israel – Building Apartheid, (Red/Fernwood, 2010), has been a strong supporter of Israel. Canada’s view of the Middle East was for “aligning the country with American imperialism.” Pearson rejected the Arab push to have the ICJ decide on the validity of the partition plan for Palestine, indicating that “a solution to the problem was impossible without the recognition of a Jewish state in Palestine. To me this was always the core of the matter.”

After the 1948 nakba, in response to Arab charges that Israel enlarged its territory illegally, Pearson said, “we must deal with the fact that a Jewish state has come into existence and has established its control over territory from which it will not be dislodged…. I do not deny for a moment that this is a difficult circumstance for the Arab states to accept, but it is nevertheless the case.”

Engler’s summary is that with the Cold War, NATO, and Israel, “Pearson was …more concerned about siding with the emerging US empire than in following the principles enunciated in the UN Charter.

Asia

Similarly in Asia, Canada under Pearson’s tutelage supported the post war colonial movements in all its dimensions. Aid was not given out of the generosity of the Canadian sole, but to counter the supposed communist threat in the region. Canada instituted its Colombo Plan, essentially creating a means to tie in Asian governments to the western position, a means of “infiltration” into the countries’ systems.

Vietnam received much support from Canada, as it was a member of the International Control Commission that was to oversee elections in the country. The vast majority of historians acknowledge that if elections went ahead, the government of Ho Chi Minh would have won easily. Canada did its utmost to block any elections because they knew of this easy North Vietnam victory.

Global Suppression

Other parts of the world received Canada’s undying support of U.S. and western imperial control. Pearson supported the oil embargo against the democratically elected Mossaedegh government in Iran. In Guatemala, support was given to the right wing U.S. backed insurrection against the democratically elected Arbenz government. (As a side note for all those saying that socialism has failed, it is interesting to note that all successful social programs established in Latin America or elsewhere in the world have in some way been overturned by U.S. covert or overt military/economic pressure, with the sycophantic support of Canada’s imperialist tending governments.)

Canada did not support blockades against South Africa, indicating that apartheid was an internal problem (more or less their stance currently with the Israel controlled Palestinian territories of the Westbank and Gaza). Canada’s view of South Africa was “largely motivated by economic interests but also…the Pearson government’s racist worldview.” France received support for it colonial positions in Morocco and Tunisia. The Suez crisis, for whose end agreement Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize, had the main concern of unity between the UK and the US and the solidity of NATO. Israel’s feathers were ruffled momentarily, but overall no real concern for Egypt developed.

Canada’s Role as Supporter of U.S. Colonialism

Engler’s next to final arguments cover the scope of Canada’s support for the US imperial project in all its facets. Pearson’s basic attitude expressed after the US fiasco at the Bay of Pigs, was that the Americans “are a wonderful and generous people, the least imperialistically minded people that ever had world power thrust on them.” The big lie still works.

Engler works through other examples. The Brazilian coup of 1964 served Canada’s corporate interests, mainly mining (as Canada now works its wonders in Central America and Peru). Pearson supported the US invasion of the Dominican Republic, again for corporate interests including mining and the seventy per cent stake in the country’s banking. Naval vessels were sent to the Barbados in a show of strength for their independence celebration.

Africa received its fair share of attention. The racist regime in Rhodesia received Canada’s support. The Portuguese were supported in their last stand with their African colonies, going beyond diplomatic and economic support to supplying military aid. Military trainers helped overthrow the government of Ghana in 1966.

Israel enters the picture again when Egypt blockaded the Strait of Tiran. From all its reactions to this, Cairo radio labeled Pearson a “silly idiot” and Al Ahramwrote, that Canada was “a stooge of the Western powers who seek to colonize the Arab world with Israel’s help.” The error in the latter message is that Canada is not a stooge, but a more than willing participant in the U.S. imperial drive.

Conclusions

After discussing Pearson’s liability for war crimes in consideration of all the above interventions around the world, Engler looks at the overall picture of Canadian foreign policy under Pearson. What is apparent is that, as with the U.S., individual leaders often do not matter in foreign affairs as much as the domination of “a small elite with most of the population shut out of the discussion. Another reason the elite dominate foreign policy is the highly unequal distribution of resources in our society, which has become even more extreme since Pearson was in office.”

In short what Engler is saying is that Canada under Harper is still decidedly within the U.S. imperial war camp, quite vociferously so. Its interests globally are aligned with those of the U.S. in all areas from climate change (witness Kyoto in both countries government stances and the Alberta tar sands), Israel (while Canada does not bow to AIPAC, they do give full support to Israeli actions in Palestine), and other areas of economic military interest in the world (most recently Afghanistan and Libya).

More Reading

The Truth May Hurt gives a good introduction into the real world of Canadian politics. Its narrow focus on Lester Pearson, often touted as Canada’s pre-eminent peace-keeper, reveals many areas where Canada simply operates as an appendage of the U.S. But Canada goes beyond the U.S. in some areas as its initial interests were under the sway of British imperialists and its trends in racist and economic dominance of much of the world. Today, its activities with power corporation in Chile, its mining interests in Peru and Central America, are all economic activities that provide great economic abundance to the corporations but pay only nominal attention to the indigenous people of the areas affected.

Engler’s other two works, the one mentioned in relation to Israel above, and his critical work The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy, provide greater detail and well referenced discussions of Canada’s not so friendly position in the global corporate-military world. The three volumes form an effective trilogy for reader’s interested in the reality of Canada’s position in the world.

—Jim Miles, Foreign Policy Journal, March 24, 2012

(View Original)

(Close)

In his new book, Yves Engler sets to demolish the near saintly status of Lester Bowles (”Mike”) Pearson in the public sphere, Canadian foreign policy circles and even on the social democratic left. And in the process, he takes on the much repeated slogan that “the world needs more of Canada.”

 Much like Noam Chomsky who provides a forward toLester Pearson’s Peacekeeping, the author relies mostly on the excellent but largely unread scholarship plus the former PM’s own statements in Parliament and in memos to successfully establish a case.

 As a diplomat in Washington, senior foreign affairs bureaucrat, foreign affairs minister and a prime minister in Liberal governments from the 1940s to the 1960s, Pearson figured prominently in the shaping of Canadian foreign policy in the post World War II period.

 Engler says that Pearson also participated in the creation of international institutions such as NATO and the Bretton Woods system, both of which helped to reinforce post war U.S. dominance in the world.

 ”Canada was well placed to benefit from U.S. centered multilateral imperialism. A growing capitalist power, Canada was the world’s second biggest creditor nation at the end of World War II (and had one of the biggest armies),” the author writes.

 Engler says that despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize following his push to establish a UN peacekeeping force in Egypt during the Suez Crisis Lester Pearson made controversial political decisions that at times bordered on the “war criminal.”

 Despite Prime Minister Mackenzie King’s strong opposition, Pearson got Canada roped into participating in the murderous air and ground military campaigns led by the U.S. under the United Nations flag in the 1950-1953 Korean war. The result was millions of dead Koreans in a still misunderstood conflict today.

 ”In many ways the Korean War marks the beginning of the permanent war economy in the U.S.,” Engler writes.

 Pearson was a bit of a double dealer. As a Christian Zionist he worked behind the scenes diplomatically to support the UN partition plan in Palestine that culminated in Israel’s founding in 1948. But as part of an anti-Semitic Liberal government in the same time period, he was unapologetic in his endorsement of a policy to keep post-World War II Jewish refugees, languishing in Europe, out of pristine Canada.

 From the late 1940s until the 1960s Pearson backed all of the major U.S. moves against nationalist governments that sought to control their countries’ internal resources. The most notorious are the 1953 CIA inspired coups against democratically elected administrations in Guatemala and Iran. Neither has never really recovered from the consequences of those decisions by Washington to intervene.

 Pearson was adamant and consistent in opposing every significant anti-colonial movement in the developing world from the 1940s to the 1960s whether it involved Algeria, Indochina or Africa or Indonesia.

 Furthermore, he fought against UN resolutions denouncing apartheid in South Africa, accepted American nuclear weapons on Canadian soil following the U.S. inspired election defeat of Conservative PM John Diefenbaker and provided plenty of diplomatic support to the American war in Vietnam — despite the well publicized scolding received from President Lyndon Johnson after Canada’s PM urged a bombing pause over North Vietnam in April 1965.

Engler suggests that Canada made a lot of money out of the Vietnam War through the sale of raw materials like nickel, aluminum, iron ore and steel, as well as weapons to the Americans. During its failed battle to keep Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) in the 50s from becoming independent states, France was also a beneficiary of tens of millions of dollars in Canadian arms through NATO’s Mutual Aid Program, he adds.

He writes that Pearson was not adverse to red baiting his critics of his decisions in the CCF/NDP and the peace movement.

Meanwhile, the coming to power of Pierre Trudeau in 1968 followed by successive Quebec centric PMs, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, created a temporary interlude in Canadian foreign policy.

The high-minded rhetoric on diplomacy, disarmament and international aid under this quartet of PMs did not always match the reality on the ground but at least Canada did display a friendlier face to the world than had been the case under Pearson.

Pearson regarded Canada’s membership in NATO as sacrosanct and certainly a more significant feather in his cap than peacekeeping, writes Engler.

And so, the former PM was upset when Pierre Trudeau’s new Liberal government embarked upon an internal review of Canada’s status in the alliance. Ottawa maintained the status quo, but Canadian NATO troops were eventually withdrawn from Western Europe.

But Ottawa did manage to distance itself from the U.S. in a way that might have unimaginable under Pearson, such as maintaining good trade relations with Cuba despite Washington’s embargo of Fidel Castro’s revolutionary government. Later under Mulroney, Canada kept its diplomatic ties with the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, despite an U.S. instigated and ideologically driven war against that progressive government in the 1980s; as well as played a diplomatic role in the end of apartheid in South Africa. Engler says the nice face of Canada evaporated with the arrival of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives in Ottawa in 2006. In fact, he argues that there a “direct historical line” between Stephen Harper’s belligerent stance in the world and how Lester Pearson aggressively staked out Canada’s role at the height of the Cold War.

”The pro-U.S. imperial vision that Pearson was laying Harper has continued,” says Engler in a recent interview.

The author has no patience with the argument promoted in the Liberal and NDP parties and by certain journalists (e.g. Linda McQuaig) and peace organizations (the Rideau Institute) that Canada has to return to the golden days of Lester Pearson.

Engler argues that Pearson was primarily interested during the Suez crisis of 1956 in mediating a conflict among NATO partners.

On one side stood the British and French which with the Israelis had invaded Egypt to forestall the nationalization of the Suez Canal by the Cairo government. Opposed to this last gasp of European colonialism was the U.S. and President Dwight Eisenhower, motivated primarily to expand American influence in the crucial oil-rich Middle East region.

In fact, Ottawa accepted the British request to freeze Egyptian assets in Canada to protest Egyptian president Gamal Nasser’s move to gain more control over his nation’s key asset in the Suez Canal.

But to question Lester Pearson’s role in the world is to desecrate one of this country’s greatest icons.

”There are narrow parameters of debate in the dominant media and so much of the sectors of society, the political forces that should be critical, have not been because they push mythology because it serves their political purpose,” Engler explained to this reviewer.

In his various books, including the Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy, Engler has emphasized that domestic business, including mining, oil, banking, insurance and telecommunications have played a significant role in directing Canada’s response to the various crises in the world where its interests predominate.

Engler is critical of a dated “left-nationalist” perspective that places a greater stress on Washington forcing Canada to do bad things, versus looking at the culpability of various Canadian governments serving to act in concert with the country’s business elite, tied in turn to the larger U.S. corporate monolith.

Others like Steven Staples, the president of the Rideau Institute prefers to use Canada’s peacekeeping tradition, however flawed, as a political alternative and counterweight to Stephen Harper’s militarism. He steps back from looking at Canada as entirely a negative force in the world. (It may not be saleable to the Canadian public.)

Although the two men differ on this point, Staples describes Engler’s new book as a “welcome contribution,” to the foreign policy debate in Canada.

—Paul Weinberg, rabble.ca, Feb 23, 2012

(View Original)

(Close)

He’s taken on Canada’s peacekeeping image in his quest to disprove the legacy of one of this country’s most-loved prime ministers. Lester B. Pearson, a Nobel Peace Prize Winner long-heralded as a model peacekeeper even before he served as prime minister, doesn’t entirely deserve his “honest broker” reputation, Yves Engler argues in his new book, Lester Pearson’s Peacekeeping: The Truth May Hurt.

The author and activist, known through his previous five books for his critical approach to Canada’s foreign policy, spoke about his latest work at the University of Lethbridge Sunday evening during a stop in his cross-country book tour as he aims to dispel what he calls “the myth of Lester Pearson.”

By combing through Hansard archives from the years 1948 to 1957, when Pearson was external affairs minister and from 1963 to 1968, when he was prime minister heading a Liberal government, Engler found that Pearson’s own statements on topics including colonialism and the U.S. war in Vietnam contradicted popular opinion that he was a great peacekeeper. And the author says he hasn’t received much backlash for saying so. The book’s forward is written by Noam Chomsky, who calls Pearson a war criminal.

”I’ve said I’d be happy to debate anybody that wants to argue a pro-Pearson foreign policy but I’m absolutely convinced that nobody from a progressive or even liberal perspective will do that because all they’d have to do is read out statement after statement that he made in the House of Commons, his words, word for word. And I think most people would be astounded to hear how strong a Cold Warrior he was and how he justified Canadian weapons being used to suppress the anti-colonial struggle in Vietnam, how he supported the U.S. war in Vietnam and on and on,” Engler said.

He wrote the book to tear down “the myth of Pearson” and to compare the late former prime minister’s foreign policies with those of current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which Engler makes no apologies for challenging.

”There’s a lot of parallels between Stephen Harper’s aggressive, militaristic foreign policy and Lester Pearson’s foreign policy,” he said.

He said he hopes his book will change the way schools teach students about Canadian historical policy and perhaps prompt thinkers to shed their rose-coloured glasses when looking upon Pearson’s legacy.

”It’s imperative to talk to people and to get people thinking about the issues, particularly in a critical way that doesn’t necessarily come from watching the History Channel or from the textbook in Grade 10,” he said.

Engler’s talk was sponsored by the Lethbridge Public Interest Research Group.

—Katie May, Lethbridge Herald, March 19, 2012

(View Original)

(Close)