There is an excellent article in the National Post by veteran foreign and defence policy reporter Matthew Fisher headlined: “Canada’s jilted partners languish as peacekeeping fetish feeds love affair with the U.N.” Mr Fisher is dismayed because, as he puts it, “The Trudeau government has a bit of a pacifist streak, a peacekeeping fetish, a romantic nostalgia for Pearsonian internationalism and a distrust of the security arrangements that have kept Canada secure since the Second World War.” He points out that the current Liberal; regime’s “lack of ardour” for working with traditional and trustworthy partners is deeply rooted in the Liberals’ political DNA and in the minds of the Laurentian elites, it goes all the way back to Pierre Trudeau and it was maintained by Jean Chrétien.
Somewhere in his postwar ramblings through the universities of war-torn Europe Pierre Trudeau came to the not totally unreasonable conclusion that nationalism was the cause of two world wars in the 20th century and the emerging threat of an atomic armageddon. But he drew no distinction between the nationalism of Fascist Italy National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan, on one hand, and defiant Britain, on the other. Nationalism was the problem, period ~ he was, in many ways, like Isaiah Berlin’s hedgehog: a man possessed of one “big idea” that drove his thinking on many issues, including Canadian national unity. It, anti-nationalism, must have been an appealing notion to a young man who recognized that, thanks to his adolescent fascination with e.g. Abbé Lionel Groulx and other French Canadian nationalists, he had ended up o the wrong side of history ~ hiding in Harvard when mature, responsible French Canadians were fighting in Europe.
Pierre Trudeau was profoundly ignorant of history, including Canadian history and he certainly and very clearly did not understand (and never bothered to learn about) the policies of Lester B Pearson, the man who brought him into power, or he would have known that Pearsonian peacekeeping, using UN forces, had nothing at all to do with restoring or keeping the peace anywhere, it was ALL, 100%, about preventing a serious break in Anglo-American relations caused by the fact that Anthony Eden, the British prime minister was a weak minded fool who, in 1956, listened to an equally weak minded French leader, not to his American allies. President Eisenhower has furious at the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt, which upset his policy applecart, and the Canadian “invention” of peacekeeping was a political-diplomatic masterstroke by Prime Minister Louis St Laurent and External Affairs Minister ‘Mike’ Pearson that, simultaneously, deprived the Russians of a foothold in the Middle East and may have saved the entire Western alliance. It was all part of winning the Cold War and containing the USSR. That’s why Canadians went off to Egypt, in 1957, wearing blue berets. It had nothing to do with the Suez Canal or peace anywhere. It was part of a grand strategy, which Canada had until Pierre Trudeau took office. Pierre Trudeau never understood that, neither did Jean Chrétien and it is evident that Justin Trudeau and Stéphane Dion are just as profoundly ignorant as their Liberal predecessors. So, sad to say, are most Canadians because our public education curricula are int he hands of equally ignorant educrats who think that Pierre Trudeau was, in some way, smart or even great ~ he was neither. Not only were the intellectual barbarians at the gate, beginning in 1967 we gave them the keys to the front door!
Mr Fisher, in the National Post article, says that Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are mistrustful of American leadership ~ and who isn’t? ~ and enamoured with China and French speaking Africa. He suggests that Canada will buy a second rate (French?) fighter to replace the CF-18s and that the Americans will, quietly, take over the “first line” of North American aerospace defence, including over Canada, relegating the Royal Canadian Air Force to a position “in the rear, with the gear,” as our air force colleagues describe non-combat-effective elements. He maintains that the once fabled “bromance” between Prime Minister Trudeau and President Obama was both brief and very one-sided. He says that the Trudeau regime’s change in foreign policy “must be causing bewilderment and anxiety in Washington and other Western capitals and perverse delight in Beijing and Moscow.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.