> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, OECDObserver world
> <ocdeobserver at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > What I said was the present Canadian government could not locate Libya on
> a
> > map before the onset of the civil war. That a handful of Canadian
> business
> > people who could may or may not donate to the Conservative party of
> Canada
> > is a moot point. To the extent that this government has any foreign
> > policy
> > with respect to North Africa in general and Libya is a function of its
> > default stance. Pro-resource extraction, pro-US foreign policy, pro Nato
> > and pro-military spending. None of which have anything to do with the
> > value
> > of civilian lives.
> >
>
> True. Canada supports Canada's corporate interests - which are usually the
> same as the US, though not always. No disagreement. I do believe though
> that
> regardless of the ignorance of Canada's government, they will get a call
> from corporate capital telling them precisely what position to take. That's
> their job, after all.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. I just finished outlining why this government would be
in favour of foreign adventure without any particular attachment to any
particular group of capitalists. I think in the case of Canada the logic to
participate in Libya went something like this. The Americans have green
lighted it; the UN SC has green lighted it; NATO of which we are member is
going to be the force; we are trying to justify 30 billion in new fighter
jets and we are going into an election and the protection of civilians by
violent means fits quite nicely with our domestic tough on crime position.
Suncor no Suncor this conservative government was going to participate. And
so too would have a liberal government for a different series of cynical
reasons.
>
> > The point was not that the Canadian or any western government does not
> have
> > specific interests motivating violence in foreign countries the point is
> > that they almost *always* do and we do not need to waste time debating if
> > Suncor or Bechtel or ACME universal minor mega Corp is behind it or not.
> > Nor do we need to waste time taking very serious positions on whether it
> is
> > the oil they want or a price move on oil, access to cheap labour or the
> > cheapening of domestic labour supplies blah blah blah.
> >
>
> It doesn't seem true that they almost *always* do have motivation for
> violence. They certainly didn't in Libya from 2003 through 2010 - they
> invested heavily there. Now they're upside down on their earlier policy.
> Why? Russia, China and Turkey are not. There's not such a pat answer -
> since
> we all know Canada couldn't care less about 'freedom', etc.
>
> Sorry my point was if necessary they will motivate violence directly or
indirectly if it fits their needs.
>
> > As an example, Suncor does 330,000 bpd from the Alberta oil sands alone.
> > Total oil sands production is over 1.2 million bpd. So a 5% increase in
> > prices from global supply shortages is better than 50,000bpd and it gets
> > approval from the whole sector not just one company. Foreign policy is
> > about heads we win tails you loose.
> >
>
> Excellent point. And it seems you just reinforced that 'wasting time
> learning the alleged facts' of Canadian capital is important, rather than
> the reverse. In light of the huge fireworks over Libyan policy going on
> between US vs. UK vs. France vs. Germany vs. Russia/China/Turkey, I would
> guess that it is not at all a simple black and white decision by each
> country - they must weigh exactly which parts of their ruling class wins
> and
> which loses. Once again, the facts actually matter.
>
> Yes, true but that is the point. The choice to engage or not in foreign
adventures is presented to the population as a choice between good and evil
when it patently is not. Turkey is a middleman between the west and east
and must battle to walk that thin line. So to its east it says we are the
voice of moderation in NATO, to the west it says we are the voice of
modernization. Whatever the national case there is a weighing of the
national interest as myopically understood.
> > I am not going to spend much time chasing down the pissy little facts of
> > why
> > this or that foreign adventure is equally as cynical as the last. The
> > point
> > is they are cynical. We know this and we know that the global capitalist
> > state system is structurally configured as such. Now if a need yet
> another
> > example to make the argument that the state system is cynical then the
> > details of Libya become relevant just as rising to the sun confirms today
> > is
> > pretty much like yesterday. But in general I do not wake up to confirm
> > this
> > less than novel fact.
> >
>
> Each day the same as the last? I don't believe we have a new war every day,
> do we? On what day then should we find it necessary to 'waste' our time to
> 'learn the alleged facts', if not today upon the launch of a new war? I
> can't think of a better day to spend our time on learning.
>
> That is not the point. The point is there are event regularities with
motivating causes which are the same. War comes and goes as surely as night
follows day. One has been ordained by God (metaphor) and the other by man
(sic). Changing the human world means changing the architecture which
validates the very idea of national interest and vitiates any serious
application of the responsibility to protect (R2P). R2P just becomes
another ideological resource ready to hand in the cynical interstate system.
If you want to spend your time documenting this cynical fact that is fine by me. As sure as night follows day I am sure will be more than able to demonstrate it time and again.
-PF
>
> --
> Peter Fay
> http://theclearview.wordpress.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>