CKNW Editorial
for October 5, 2001

I received an email which, while agreeing with yesterday’s editorial on the Cold War and how we came out with our liberty intact, expressed deep concern about American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War and pointed out that countries America is now wooing have had terrorists in their history. And she is right. Especially Syria but including Saudi Arabia and Iran. But what I think this misses is an essential ingredient in forming opinions on world affairs.

God bless the idealists. No society could exist without them. Who could possibly really dislike people who march for peace … or picket an embassy when its country has sinned? The problem is that no country is full of idealists … never has been one and never will be. The world with which we deal is not, alas, idealistic and won’t be made so by us wishing that it were. Moreover, idealists seem to only march against and picket one side of the world’s great divide. The good, gentle folks who conducted peace marches and picketed embassies during the Cold War only marched against and picketed the United States and its allies. When the US was being violent or interfering with the rights of sovereign nations all hell broke loose yet this same group was remarkably silent when the Soviet Union put down riots in Poland and East Germany or ended attempts at gaining independence by the Hungarians and the Czechs. But I don’t really want to fight that battle again this morning but deal with the actions of the United States since the end of the Cold War.

What the left doesn’t want to understand is that there are realities in this world and they simply are not idealistic in nature.

The Arabs have a saying – the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The US – indeed Nato – enemy now is the Taliban and fundamentalist Islam. Fundamentalist Islam has other enemies, Islamic countries – in the coalition the US has put together - that have, by our standards, flawed governments. These countries – Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt have much different motives than those of the United States … they’re afraid that Fundamentalist Islam will upset their regimes. The United States by supporting these regimes, presumably helps to prolong them. Does this mean that the United States, in accepting help from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran approves of those regimes?

Of course not. It is what’s known as Realpolitik. Today’s problem – and tomorrow’s too for that matter – is nailing the terrorism that caused the terrible events of September 11. First things first, a policy which however necessary, is always fraught with danger,

But let’s look backwards a bit to see where Great Powers have faced this difficulty before.

In September 1939, Britain and France went to war over Poland, a country scarcely known for its overwhelming democracy and a country that just a few months before had, as Hitler occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia contrary to the Munich Agreement, grabbed off a chunk of that poor country for itself. But it wasn’t morality that brought Britain and France to Poland’s side, it was Realpolitik. Hitler had to be stopped now or it might be never.

An even better example came on June 22, 1941 when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. No one was more opposed to Communism than Churchill who had, in 1919, supported an Allied force in Russia so that, in his words, Communism could be strangled at birth. But what was his attitude to the Soviet Union being attacked? He announced that he unsaid not a word that he had uttered against communism in the past but that Britain would give the Soviet Union every bit of help it could. In fact he said "if Hitler were to invade Hell I would at least make a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." Realpolitik.

Foreign policy for the United States is a very tricky business. Mr Bush knows that the regimes in the Middle East that support him are hated by much of the population they suppress and the peoples of these countries see Americans as hateful for supporting their oppressors. Mr Bush also knows that opposition to Middle East dictators, however democratic they may seem, will probably be taken over by fundamentalism if they topple the government.

One – not the only – but one of the major problems the United States has with Islamic nations is their support of Israel. Couldn’t the United States secure the lasting support of Islamic countries by just walking away and leave Israel to defend herself?

Clearly not. It has something to do with the Jewish American voter to be sure but it also has to do with obligations given by America and acted upon by the State of Israel for over 50 years. Israel is a member of the United Nations and has a right to exist, a right that would be denied her the moment the US abandoned her. It just isn’t realistic that the United States would abandon Israel so it’s silly to argue the merits of Israel continuing to exist as a nation. In Realpolitik, if the price of Islamic support is abandonment of Israel, the price is too high. Moderate Muslims know that so don’t demand that price be payed.

It is often said that the only reason the United States cares about the Middle East is oil. That is scarcely the only reason but it is certainly one of them. In the world of reality, what would you expect? President Bush to tell American industry that they must cut back 25% so we can all have a nice big depression? This oil argument has an ironic twist – as President Bush moves closer and closer to oil self sufficiency, at least on this continent, the same people who criticize him for being involved in the Middle East for oil are mad at him for drilling for more oil at home and wanting to have a secure supply from Canada.

Canadians, like all peoples, want it both ways – we don’t want to export raw logs to Japan but do all the value added here yet demand that the Japanese assemble their cars in Canada. We want free entry into the United States for our lumber but won’t sell them a drop of water.

Where I think we go wrong is that we feel the compelling need to see all things as either right or wrong. Life – and world politics – is seldom, if ever, that simple. Very few things are simply right or simply wrong, Most issues – be they foreign policy or trade matters – are both attackable and defensible. In the real world, the enemy of your enemy is your friend though it’s wise to remember that this is subject to instant change. In the real world we all want to have the very best of every deal, us always winning, them always losing.

The United States is scarcely right all the time. At any given time 50% of Americans think their government is wrong. If they aren’t right all the time it would seem to me to follow that they’re not wrong all the time either. In making our decision we should, of course, examine the rights and wrongs of the issues, the morality of the question. We should also ask, however, what are the realities here?

For it’s in the real world – not university common rooms, neighbourhood pubs or public places to the accompaniment of loud hailers - that leaders, be they politicians, business leaders or labour leaders, must make their decisions.