[antiwar-van] Who needs the Conservatives when the Liberals are doing the US bidding

[hanna kawas]

  http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=5752

        ZNet | Terror War

        Propaganda and Terrorism
        Canada's Election Threat

        by Anthony Fenton; June 22, 2004

    Most Canadians don't even know it, but the war on terrorism is providing
the backdrop to the country's first 'post-9/11' federal election, slated for
June 28th. That the discourse surrounding terrorism is perhaps the most
Orwellian of the overall election propaganda is rather disconcerting,
revealing that Canada has very poor "prospects for democracy" for the
foreseeable future.

    As Canada's "War On Terrorism Watch" says: "Indeed, many governments are
using the war on terrorism to further clamp down on critical voices within
their own countries, including writers, journalists and political
dissidents."

    Reid Morden, former Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service (CSIS), wrote an extensive analysis that put Canada's role in the
war on terrorism into realpolitik perspective. Here he describes the
paradigmatic change ensued by 9/'11:

    "Apart from the horror of the day itself, 9/11 was a watershed in
Canada. It brought home to the government that Canada had significant gaps
in its legislative framework to respond to the threats posed in an
increasingly dangerous and ruthless world."

    Morden goes on to describe how the 'war on terrorism' has galvanized
Canadian policymakers:

    "9/11 has provided a common focus within the federal government. For
once there is a common objective in protecting the country and its
citizens.As the next door neighbour and traditional close ally of the United
States, the principal target of the terrorist's wrath, Canada must be
prudent in protecting itself against the possibility that we may be attacked
as a target of opportunity. No one really knows what form the next attack
will take but most intelligence sources are agreed that it, or they, will
come."

    Canada's role in the war on terror has never been open for public
discussion, like it would be in a functioning democracy. The very nature of
the war on terrorism precludes discussion or transparency. The logic that
informs war on terror discourse is necessarily Orwellian, given the
'masterminds' behind the war on terrorism know full well that waging war
only increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks. They know that by
ignoring the true causes of terrorist attacks in lieu of false causes, they
are committing to fuelling US-sponsored terrorism.

    In many ways, Canada's future depends on terrorism. Accordingly, the
policies are being put in place to "secure" this future. One way that the
Canadian government is doing this is by investing billions of Canadian tax
dollars in the US and Canadian war machine. The Canadian Pension Plan
currently has almost $3 billion dollars invested in US and Canadian military
contractors, unbeknownst to most Canadians. [1]

    There is pretty much a guaranteed substantial return on these
investments, given that Canada is rapidly increasing its defence spending
and war making capabilities. Last December, these same military contractors
who are being subsidized by the Canadian public were fearing "backlash
because of the federal government's decision to stay out of the U.S.-led
attack on Iraq." These comments, made two weeks prior to Paul Martin's
installation as Prime Minister, speak to the consequences to be endured by
those who refuse to go along with the war on terror: lower profits. This
moves the decision to participate in Iraq [and the war on terror] from the
level of morality to that of the economy [aka, amorality].

    In terms of the economy there is no more important relationship to
Canadian elites than the one with the US. Therefore, there is great
incentive for defence contractors to push for economic integration with the
US, knowing full well that this cannot happen without a commitment to the
'war on terror'. Morden captures these sentiments:

    "In this new world, nothing is more important than our overall
relationship with the United States. 9/11 and its aftermath brought us face
to face with some stark realities, above all the implications of the
steadily accelerating integration of the North American economy."

    On April 27th, the Martin regime tabled Canada's "first-ever National
Security Policy". Rather than having to defend this legislation, the
Liberals are using it as a selling feature in their election propaganda.
They proudly proclaim that, since 2001, "the Government of Canada has
announced in excess of $8.3 billion in specific measures to enhance Canada's
national security and address priority gaps in our system."

    The massive expenditures on security are in response to the minority of
elite Canadians who share the sentiments framed by Morden:

    "Canadian entities in the security and intelligence community must, at
all costs, deepen and strengthen their internal cooperation, and their
exterior links. Adequate funding to play a truly cooperative and effective
role is a sine qua non."

    While the National Security Policy is without historical precedent in
Canada, the US is by now very familiar with such policies. Indeed, Canada's
NSP is modelled on the Department of Homeland Security, and has been praised
as such by United States Treasury Secretary John Snow who said it looks
"very much like what we're doing with the Department of Homeland Security."

    The other important group of players to praise the document were the
Canadian Council of Chief Executives. The head of the CCCE is Tom D'Aquino,
known in many circles as the "shadow Prime Minister". [2] He summed up his
group's support for the NSP:

    "Canada's business leaders have long argued that economic and physical
security go hand in hand, and the war on terrorism is a battle to preserve
both democratic values and the open markets that are essential to the
prosperity of Canadians. The national security policy unveiled today by
Prime Minister Paul Martin represents an important step forward in meeting
this challenge."

    In many respects, the NSP is a virtual rewording of the CCCE's own
recommendations, as unveiled in their New Frontiers: Building a 21st Century
Canada-United States Partnership in North America, the thesis of which is
"the way Canada manages its relationships within North America will have a
profound impact on our country's future security and prosperity."

    The economic implications of Canada's integration, which the CCCE
describe as "inevitable and irreversible", are all the more profound,
considering Canada's role as primary exporter of oil to the US. CSIS's
Morden puts this 'determinism' into perspective:

    "For Canada, which, at this point, exports more energy to the United
States than the US receives from Saudi Arabia, it may not have escaped those
planning economic attacks on the United States that Canadian energy
production and distribution systems present a target of opportunity and
vulnerability."

    Aware of this context, one might wonder why there has been nary a
mention of these issues during the election campaign. Understanding the
fundamental role played by corporate propaganda is essential here. In the
late 80's, Alex Carey summed up "three developments of great political
importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the
growth of propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against
democracy." [3]

    The intent of corporate propaganda is to secure a "propaganda-managed"
or "low-risk" democracy. By rigidly narrowing and controlling the terms of
debate, serious issues will not be discussed. By "controlling the public
mind" corporate propaganda also guarantees consent for this deliberately
narrow framing of discourse. As important as the issue of terrorism is to
corporate stakeholders, it does not merit the attention of the Canadian
public, evidently, who instead encouraged to focus their attention on such
issues as abortion, same-sex marriage, child pornography and hospital
waiting times.

    The voting Canadian public is treated as though they are children who
lack the capacity to rationally discuss issues of great importance; the war
on terrorism being one of several similarly omitted issues from the election
radar. While this deifies conventional definitions of democracy, it is in
perfect accord with 'propaganda managed democracy'.

    The presumed intellectual immaturity of the public informs the line of
questioning as found in the extensive election polling that is feverishly
conducted by large polling corporations on behalf of mostly
telecommunications corporations. Polling in fact comprises one phase of the
'election propaganda loop' where each of the politicians, media, and polling
companies appear as though they are independent of one another but are in
fact part of this 'mutually reinforcing' feedback loop. The corporate media
and politicians produce and drive the issues, while the polls validate them.
All are owned or controlled by corporate ideology.

    Jacques Ellul describes the mentality that goes into the "opinion
survey" in his Propaganda:

    "[T]o place propaganda efforts on the intellectual level would require
that the propagandist engage in individual debate with each person - an
unthinkable method. It is necessary to obtain at least a minimum of
participation from everybody." [4]

    SES Research is conducting nightly polls during the election on behalf
on cable-industry owned CPAC [sister station to the US's C-Span, both of
which resolutely tow the corporate line]. SES Research's website links
through to one of its "partners", Summa Strategies Canada, who pride
themselves as having been "directly involved in several of the major
commercialization/privatization initiatives in Canada of the last ten
years." The Chairperson of Summa is Douglas Young, Canada's former Minister
of Defence, who also serves on several other corporate boards, including
Magellan Aerospace Company.

    Similarly, it is the case that Ipsos-Reid, another major polling
company, has recently entered into a partnership with the Associ ated Press,
who boast to serving as a source of [heavily distorted] news.for more than
one billion people a day." Who better to conduct research of public opinion
than those who shape it?

    The corporate election propaganda loop has no interest in a dissenting
public opinion and is profoundly undemocratic. The existing structure of
independent media is not yet in a position to offer a serious enough
challenge to this calculus. The corporate hegemons are keeping an eye on
alternative media, and it would seem, are quietly enacting the legislation
that will pre-emptively try to silence the voice of political dissidents and
activists who are gradually helping raise the soma-induced consciousness of
the depoliticised, heavily indoctrinated masses. The most serious issue to
be addressed, perhaps, is the reality of disempowerment. One of the reasons
that people don't care - or at least seem not to -about the horrifying
realities of the world today is due in part to the deep sense of
powerlessness that corporate propaganda forces people to internalise.

    Fundamentally, the risk to corporations of a genuinely democratic
political consciousness is great, therefore the corporate propagandist must
combat this by whatever means possible. In light of current events
elsewhere, such as throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, one can look
at conditions in Canada from the perspective of destabilization. One of the
reasons that Canada is in a position to destabilize others [such as Haiti]
is because the Canadian population itself is in a state of permanent
destabilization. The goal of destabilization is to prevent the masses from
exercising their human right to self-determination. A propaganda-managed
democracy can only be pulled off once the public has relinquished this human
right. The election propaganda loop is tasked with providing the illusion
that this is not so.

    Clearly, corporate propagandists are the real terrorists, representing
the impetus for the gravest threat currently facing not only Canadians, but
all of humanity. There is a sliver of hope in the upcoming election. The
NDP, whom the Conservatives and Liberals ridicule as a second-rate political
party, giving their leader Jack Layton a [relative] Ralph Nader treatment,
are proposing to repeal the Anti-Terrorist Act, Bill C-36, that set the
stage for the National Security Policy in 2001. The NDP, while submitting to
the corporate election template, seem to have genuinely progressive
positions on several of the otherwise omitted issues. In the context of
whether or not to vote for the NDP, Stephen Shalom makes a good point in his
argument that can be applied to the Canadian election:

    "[S]mall reforms can mean an immense reduction of human suffering today,
while we're waiting for the promise of more thorough-going change in the
future." [Stephen Shalom]

    At all costs Canadians should not be voting for either of the
sociopathic corporate propagandist parties [the Liberals or Conservatives],
for both equally represent a firm commitment to the war on terror,
neo-imperialism, an emerging [Bush-fuelled]neo-fascism, and all of its
implications. [5] To not vote at all is to become a tool of these same
propagandists, who thrive on the false sense of disempowerment that they
have cultivated by "taking the risk out of democracy".

    As a thought experiment we should imagine that Morden is below referring
to corporate hegemony rather than "Islamic fundamentalist" terrorists:

    "Canada's political leadership must be steadfast in understanding and
communicating to the public that the threat is real and it is as real for
Canada as it is for any other Western country. This is not the time for the
country and its governments to go back to sleep. The danger is real. The
adversary is ruthless and patient."

    The war on terrorism is the logical consequence of the response by US
and Canadian corporate-heavies in the 1970's to the "crisis of democracy",
which was, through the creation of the welfare state, reducing profits for
the ruling elite. The conditions for Canada's complete integration with the
US have long been fostered, along with the scope and reach of corporate
propaganda. The insane mentality that drives corporate hegemony is entwined
with the one that creates the conditions for more terrorist attacks.
Accordingly, a counter-hegemonic movement must be built in order to properly
defend against both of these terrible threats.

    [1] See: Richard Sanders: "Canada Pension Plan investing in the big
business of war profiteering" in the CCPA Monitor, Volume 10, #9, March
2004.

    [2] See Tony Clarke's Silent Coup: Confronting the Big Business Takeover
of Canada, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 1997. See also Clarke's
Polaris Institute

    [3] In his Taking the Risk Out of Democracy, Andrew Lohrey, Ed. U of
Illinois Press, 1995, p. 18.

    [4] Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: the Formation of Men's Attitudes,
Vintage, 1965, p. 25-26.

    [5] For excellent background on Canada's *real* election issues and
analysis, see Justin Podur's "Killing Train" blog, and Keith Jones at the
World Socialist Website.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/antiwar-van/attachments/20040625/7faf8810/attachment.html>