Review
CANADA AND THE NEW AMERICAN EMPIRE: WAR AND ANTIWAR
edited by George Melnyk
University of Calgary Press, 253 pp.
With the overthrow of the degenerated workers’ states in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the global balance of power changed decisively, and the world entered a new political era dominated almost exclusively by the United States of America. As the world’s only superpower, the United States embarked upon a foreign-policy course determined more by the rigidities of ideology than the negotiations of politics. And American administrations – both Democrat and Republican – increasingly downplayed the potential and necessity of a United Nations role in the provision of global security.
This can be clearly seen in the first Gulf War, the tentative forays into the Horn of Africa, the activities in the former Yugoslavia and, most recently, in the invasion of Iraq. Now, there was general understanding that Saddam Hussein, a former client of the U.S., was a brutal dictator. And, as a friend of mine was fond of saying "Saddam must go… but not this way."
However, the U.S. government chose to avoid the longer (and, admittedly, more difficult) process of sanctions, inspections and negotiations advocated by the UN, and proceeded to invade the country and facilitate a "regime change." This unilateral and imperial approach will have far-reaching consequences for global security and the practice of international relations, an argument brilliantly developed in Canada and the New American Empire: War and Antiwar.
The book, edited by University of Calgary professor George Melnyk, provides a tidy critique of the specifics of the Iraqi conflict, together with a broader analysis of the political and economic assumptions of the new American empire. The volume passionately argues that the American imperial option has, and will continue to have, deleterious consequences for global peace.
Obviously, the book also considers Canada’s relationship to the new empire. As its largest trading partner, we are in a unique situation. In many ways, we are economically, culturally and viscerally tied to the United States.
Nevertheless, Canada does occasionally break with the system of imperial preference. Most recently, we did not go to war with Iraq and, as Melnyk puts it, "the implications of that refusal and how it came about and what that refusal means for Canada’s future is the core of the 15 essays presented in this book." In brief, the argument is made that Canada must maintain (or adopt) an internationalist as opposed to a continentalist approach to foreign policy.
Melnyk’s work features contributions from a variety of notables involved both in the Iraq situation and the larger peace movement, including Tariq Ismael, David Swann, Scott Ritter, Bill Phipps and Doug Roche. The volume itself is divided into three sections – thinking, acting and observing – and covers a number of themes related to the growth of the empire. The role played by the media, the potential for change facilitated by peace activism and the impact of the gilded cage of a continentalist economic structure on Canadian-American relations are among the themes addressed. Some of the contributors offer their own experiences of Iraq, and this balance of the personal and the theoretical adds to the accessibility and importance of the volume.
The authors make no secret of their support of the "peace option." In fact, this forms a central theme of the volume and, in many ways, provides the essence of the work. Overall, this book is a refreshing and balanced alternative to the jingoistic picture offered by the pro-American mainstream media and politicians in the WCC-Reform-Alliance-Conservative party. I know it sounds cliché, but this book is essential reading.
But can we afford greater independence in the foreign-policy sphere? Trade agreements have made it increasingly difficult to maintain our political and cultural independence, and our scope of action is becoming increasingly constrained.
Still, there are options. We can still choose to support the longer-term vision of the UN – the unexpected stand of the Canadian government offers some hope. In order to achieve this, Melnyk suggests a boycott of things American. Perhaps, this is more a Swiftian "modest proposal" than a serious and sustainable option. But it does point to the need to seriously consider our relationship to the new American empire, and how we can shape it. After all, feudalism wasn’t that good for the peasants.
|
Copyright ©2004 FFWD. All rights reserved.