[R-G] McQuaig: Media cheerleaders miss story

[Anthony Fenton]

Media cheerleaders miss story
http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/411135
  Apr 08, 2008 04:30 AM
Linda McQuaig

To listen to the media tell it, Canada scored a victory last week at  
the NATO summit. We got the extra 1,000 troops that the Harper  
government said were needed to continue our involvement in the Afghan  
war.

So the fact that we're going to continue to fight in Afghanistan –  
which most Canadians oppose, according to the polls – has been  
transformed into a victory. We did it! We got the extra troops for a  
war Canadians don't want! Bravo!

Actually, the media have confused the Harper government achieving its  
own objectives with the national interest being advanced.

Yes, the staunchly pro-Washington Harper government cleverly  
manipulated the weak Liberal opposition into supporting the Afghan  
military venture, largely by presenting it as an international duty  
mandated by NATO.

In fact, the countries that make up NATO have no more interest in  
fighting in Afghanistan than the Canadian public does, which is why  
the 1,000 extra troops are coming from the United States – the one  
country that is keen to fight over there.

But our media turned the situation into a mini-drama: Would Harper  
succeed at NATO or wouldn't he? It was easy to lose sight of the real  
story: The U.S. has succeeded in getting Canada to be its lead partner  
fighting an unpopular counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan.

In fact, the Harper government has recently made two agreements that  
have quietly moved us into deeper co-operation with the U.S. military  
and U.S. foreign policy.

Canada and the U.S. have signed a military agreement, called the Civil  
Assistance Plan, under which troops can cross the border to help out  
during an emergency, such as a terrorist attack.

The prospect of U.S. troops in Canada wouldn't sit well with many  
Canadians, which explains why Ottawa decided not to publicly announce  
the agreement, signed by U.S. and Canadian generals in Texas on Feb.  
14. (The U.S. military issued a press release, however, and Canada  
followed a week later with an announcement in an internal military  
publication.)

Commander David Scanlon of Canada Command notes U.S. troops in Canada  
would be under the "tactical control" of the Canadian military,  
although they'd remain under the ultimate command of the U.S.  
government. In other words, Washington would ultimately be in charge  
of them.

Scanlon insists no U.S. troops would cross into Canada without  
Canada's permission. But he acknowledged there are some wording  
differences in the U.S. press release and the Canadian announcement.

This suggests the U.S. might have a different understanding of what  
the plan permits. There's no way for Canadians to know what it does  
permit, since the agreement is secret.

In another move that brings Canada closer in line with U.S. policy,  
the Harper government last month signed a wide-ranging agreement with  
Israel establishing co-operation in "border management and security" –  
even though we don't share a border with Israel.

Does this mean Israel will become involved in intelligence gathering  
about Canadian Muslims or other Canadians supporting Palestinian  
rights? Does it mean Canada will help Israel with its military  
operations in the West Bank or Gaza?

It's striking that Canada would sign a security agreement with Israel  
only months after a Canadian Forces board of inquiry concluded that an  
Israeli bomb killed a Canadian peacekeeper manning a well-marked UN  
post during Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon.

Given their controversial nature, the Harper government has played  
down both these recent agreements – and the Canadian media have  
obliged by ignoring them.

lmcquaig at sympatico.ca