Michael Byers

Michael Byers is a University of British Columbia professor who holds a Canada Research Chair in international law and global affairs. He recently accused Canada's former Prime Minister Stephen Harper of misleading Canadians in international affairs and relying too much on George W. Bush's administration. The intent for a Nation: What Is Canada For? is his book. Examines the former Prime Minister's preferred Canadian foreign policy. Michael Byers is a keen supporter of Trudeau's militant and corporate-oriented foreign policy stance, which has marked his rise to power. He has been accused by his critics of being used as a mouthpiece to justify Canada’s increased spending on its war machine and more aggressive approach to foreign policy, Mr. Byers said there was a justification for these efforts. Allegedly, the Canadian military that was inherited by the current government was in no shape to protect the interests of Canada in the world we live in today.
Ives Engler on the other hand, is a political activist from Montreal who takes no prisoners when it comes to criticizing Canada’s foreign policy. Mr. Engler’s book The Ugly Canadian is a critical analysis of the evils that arise out of Canada’s adoption of a more militaristic approach to its foreign policy. According to Engler, the peace loving middle power that was Canada is long dead. In its place, Trudeau and those before him have created a socially and ecologically destructive war machine. Ives Engler is of the opinion that progressive citizens in Canada have failed for the most part to expose Canadian imperialism. He cites how the internationalist minded Americans have been instrumental in exposing acts of imperialism by the United States government on foreign soil.
Michael Byers and Ives Engler represent the two school of thoughts that are rife within Canada’s intellectual circles as far as the country’s foreign policy and other relevant matters are concerned. The latter is a proponent of a more militant approach to international relations. Michael Byers believes that the world that we currently live in requires Canada to have stronger military capabilities. The latter political scientist on the other hand, feels that Canada should go back to being a force for good or the peacekeeper in a world that is slowly but surely into militarism. They both make a strong case for their perspectives that is supported by a multitude of evidence. Is there one perspective that is superior? If so, which one? The aim of this paper is to examine the two political perspectives of these two characters and determine which one is superior if any. First, the paper shall examine the perspective of pro-military political scientist Michael Byers. Second, the Ives Engler stance will also be examined in great detail as well. Finally, based on the first and second parts of the paper I will draw conclusions.
Michael has previously supported Canadian intervention in sovereign nations on humanitarian grounds. In a 2015 article known as ‘Smart Defense: A Plan for Rebuilding Canada’s Military’, Michael Byers stresses the need for Canada to have a military that is not only well equipped but also capable of handling the hostile environment on foreign soil. He claims that the current state of Canada’s military is deplorable at best. He describes the military hardware at the disposal of the state as old, obsolete, unreliable as well as constantly unavailable when duty calls. In addition to this article, Michael Byers called for increased military spending in many more forums. For instance, in ‘Living with Uncle: Canada-US Relations in an Age of Empire he claims that the defence budget that is set at below 2% as below par especially comparing it with Canada’s neighbor in the south. Michael Byers is also affiliated to the NDP, a political party that openly supported the former prime minister’s large military budgets between 2011 and 2015. This ‘left’ party favors an imperialist or military approach to global affairs. Ironically, the same party backs the push for arms control as well as more oversight as far as the Canadian manning sector is concerned. In addition, the party is a staunch supporter of an effort to expand Canada’s combat fleet at a cost of $100 billion over a period of three decades.
The military approach that is favored by Byers has been responsible for the toppling of legitimate governments in sovereign states all over the world. Case in point, the bombing of Libya is as result of a western pro-capitalist outlook that started with Prime Minister Harper. The government has also shown support for the ongoing military repression that has been observed in Egypt. Canada’s previous active military involvement as far as foreign policy can be traced back as far the toppling of Rwanda’s sovereign government back in the 90’s as well as the involvement in toppling Haiti elected government.
There however is a case to be made for a more robust Canadian military as well as a more aggressive foreign policy. To justify a stronger Canada, you only need to look as far as North Korea. Kim Jong Un is a ticking time bomb and his country’s proximity to the Americas is very unsettling. Recent antagonism with Canada’s neighbor to south has done little to ease the tension. With threats of war and nuclear apocalypse flying from every corner, maybe it is time Canada ensured its military capabilities are up to the task of protecting its interests both home and abroad. This is especially necessary since the leaders on both sides of the divide are more or less unstable maniacs. Kim Jong Un has been building his country’s nuclear arsenal for a while now and no wonder countries in the west are rattled. President Trump on the other hand is a loose cannon who has made one questionable decision after another as far as foreign policy is concerned. Throw Vladimir Putin in the mix and Trudeau’s approach to foreign policy begins to make much sense. If it is true that Canada’s military is a sorry state, then it is about time the country initiative towards fixing it.
Ives Engler contends that western nations invade sovereign states under the guise of ‘responsibility to protect’ civilians from extreme threats when in reality they are there to seize resources. He is of the opinion that rather than military intervention, Canada should adopt a foreign policy that puts the ordinary people around the world first. He first points out to the former prime minister radical anti-environmentalism and the Canadians government’s willingness to look the other way as mining companies continue to exploit third world countries. In his book The Ugly Canadian he also discusses the role of Canada in opposing the Arab Spring as well as its pro-Israeli stand in recent years. According to Ives Engler, the Canadian government has killed a diplomatic tradition that was respected around the world and adopted a militant approach much similar to that of the United States.
Before Harper’s re-election in 2006, Canada was a leading player in international relations and occupied an enviable position of a respectable peace maker. Think Lester Pearson who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in the founding of United Nations peacekeeping troops. Other instances that earned Canada the respect it once enjoyed include the solid anti-apartheid push during the term of Mulroney. The era of Chretien that saw Canada back the establishment of the International Criminal Court as well as the signing of a landmines treaty. Prime Minister Harper systematically alienated a group of countries making a mockery of Canada’s previous role as a neutral peacemaker in the world. The final nail on the coffin had to be Canada’s failure in 2010 to get temporary seat of the Security Council of the United Nations.
Canada has adopted a foreign policy that is eerily similar to that of the United States and the international backlash has been unprecedented. Most Canadian choose to remain ignorant on their country’s foreign policy. It is no secret that Canada’s international mining corporations have their hands dirtied by dirty oil. The impacts of their activities on the environment and climate change are negative but they have lobbyists to green-wash their position. In stark contrast, environmental activists have been labeled as radicals or extremists who accept foreign funds to oppose government’s position.
Canada’s reaction to events in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain, Syria, and Saudi Arabia has been questionable. Case in point, they demonized the government Muammar Gaddafi and participated in active bombing of targets in Libya while playing favorites when it came to United States ally Saudi Arabia. The indifference that the political class is showing to their government’s interference is nothing short of a mockery of the will of the people amount. According to Ives Engler, the war that Canada played a prominent role in Libya was driven by profits in that in the oil rich country. Under conservative leadership Canada has been effectively turned into a war monger on a global scale. Events such as military ‘entertainment’ and ‘support the troops’ are laughable attempts at justifying unnecessary active military involvement both on a domestic and global scale.
From where I stand, it seems that Canada is preparing for future wars through diplomacy and economic empowerment. Canada’s military gets a lot of funding both from the government and from across the border to promote the growing arms industry. Ives Engler contends this increased militant approach that has been adopted by the government does not bode well for democracy. The Canadian foreign has been growing in belligerence thanks to neoliberal economic policies compounded by right wing religious policies that the conservative government has been pushing. This combination is detrimental to environmental conservation efforts as well as cultures across the border. There appears to be justification for the increased aggression in Canada’s foreign policy. Rather, this seems like an attempt by the Canadian government to flex its muscles in attempt to show its military might.
I believe that Ives Engler’s issue is not Canada’s bid to improve its military might. His problem is the use of the said military capabilities to further questionable objectives. Such include toppling democratically elected governments and the support or installation of repressive regimes across the world. In addition to interfering with sovereign states, their military capabilities are used to aid mining companies in their exploitative ventures in third world countries. Moreover, military expansion is taking place at the expense of matters that most people might consider more pressing or critical such as climate change and global warming. In recent times, climate change has attracted more attention what with the reported rise in temperatures, sea levels as well as increased greenhouse gases emission. The damage wrought by tropical hurricanes to Canada’s neighbor in the south should serve as a warning on the impact that ignoring climate change can have. Finally, religion is increasingly becoming more entrenched into the government. This a very worrying trend that has come about since the conservative party took power. The separation of the state and the church is very important in every modern democracy that serves a diverse citizenry. The right wing religious policies being pushed by the conservative party while in power threaten to alienate most Canadians who subscribe to other faiths or those that do not subscribe to any religion.
These two perspectives are at the polar extremes of the foreign policy issue. While the pro-government Michael Byers clearly favors the militant approach adopted by the government, he does so with reasons. The world is changing, the world from the cold war era is gone. Governments from our time have to deal with a growing threat on a global scale. Terrorism has taken on a whole new form; they are no longer some crazy goat herders from the other side of the world. Terrorists have brought their campaigns to our front step. More and more western youths are being radicalized. This maybe as a result of a deeper underlying problem but one thing is for sure, Canada’s military capabilities need to be in a position to identify and neutralized terrorist threats. This calls for the government to secure the homeland by making it harder for terrorists to only slip into the country, but also by ensuring the vulnerable youths do not succumb to radical ideas. Numerous youths travelled from western countries to go join the fight in Syria. One of the most visible figures in the ISIS terrorism activities was ‘Jihadi John’ whose origin was Britain.
Canada’s efforts have been concentrated oversees in recent years and this might lead to ignorance to the fact that terrorism is now becoming more homegrown. The United States of America has in recent times felt the real impact of homegrown terrorists. Their campaign oversees has been paid so much attention that the problem in their backyard has gone unnoticed. This is the risk that Canada might may expose itself to if its continued foreign policy is not revised. The United States foreign policy is the same one that Canada is favoring more and more; that of taking the war to them. ‘Them’ in this case refers to the terrorists or any elements abroad that they feel to be a threat to their imperialism. Now the chicken have come home to roost, the proverbial barbarians are no longer at the gate, they are inside the walls. As the United States scrambles to deal with internal terrorist threats, Canada should be all eyes; learn from the mistakes of their neighbor or risk making the same mistakes.
When all is said and done, it cannot be disputed that both sides have a strong case. Michael Byers’ argument that Canada needs a more aggressive foreign policy is definitely something to think about. Canada has been a force for good in the world for a long time. This cannot continue being the case without a strong military. If it is indeed true that its military hardware is in disrepair, then efforts need to be made to remedy that. Military intervention is often necessary but should only be used where all other means fail. After all, interfering with sovereign states should only be a measure of last resort. On the other hand, Ives Engler has legitimate concerns as far as Canada’s military expansion is concerned. Militarization always poses a threat to democracy because it enables the government to easily muscle out any kind of opposition. Moreover, climate change and environmental degradation are real threats in the times we live in. as such, they should be taken just as seriously as terrorism because of the great impact it can have on future generation. Last but not least, Canada needs to put a leash on the activities of its mining corporations abroad. These same companies are not only propagators of the environmental degradation that I just mentioned above, they are indirectly responsible for most of the wars in third world nations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, none of the perspectives held by either Michael Byers or Ives Engler is superior to the other. Mr. Byers and Mr. Engler are different sides of the same coin. Both raise legitimate concerns that need to be addressed if Canada is to become what tomorrow needs it to be. Canada needs to pursue needed military reforms without compromising its position as a world leader as far as international relations is concerned. A balance needs to be struck to ensure reforms not only in its military, but also in its entire foreign policy as well as its climate change mitigation initiatives. So both perspectives been put forth by these two political intellectuals should serve as a wake-up call to all the parties involved. The issues that are being raised are real and need to be address sooner later than later.











Bibliography
Byers, Michael. (2013) International law and the Arctic. Cambridge University Press.
Byers, Michael (2007) Intent for a Nation: What Is Canada For? Douglas & Mcintyre.
Engler, Ives. (2012) The Ugly Canadian. Red Publishing.
Engler, Ives. (2015) Canada in Africa: 300 years of Aid and Exploitation. Fernwood Publishing.
Engler, Ives. (2009) The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy. Fernwood Publishing.