Outside Influence?

Here is a story that illustrates some of my concerns with NATO. The current secretary-general's term ends this summer and various names have been floated as his successor, among them Peter Mackay and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. But apparently Turkey objects to the Dane's candidacy because he was "unsympathetic" when a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Mohammad in 2006. We all remember the outrage this little incident stirred in the Muslim world. The National Post reports: "(Turkey's) Prime Minister Tayyip Erogan said Muslim countries wanted Turkey to block [Rasmussen's] appointment."

What is truly outrageous is the idea that Turkey is being influenced at all by other Muslim countries. NATO appointments should be made with NATO's best interests in mind, not the feelings of non-member states. There is some merit to the argument that NATO would be better off with a less antagonizing appointment, but this is a decision for NATO to make.

It may seem like an outdated notion, but NATO is a military alliance that binds countries one to another. A member's action that impacts NATO's sphere should therefore be directed first and foremost by the interest of its allies. NATO countries would do well to remember this, whether they are old members (like the U.S.) or new members (like Turkey).

Multiculture Wars

There was an interesting op-ed piece in today's G&M on immigration and integration. I tend to agree with the author. Multiculturalism as Canadians typically understand and express it is not a cultural phenomenom but a political one. In fact, it is just one of many policies/initiatives that the Liberal Party of Canada has established over the last half-century in an effort to equate Canadian values with Liberal values. This 'program' has generally met with success.

Universal health care is another example. I do not mean that our health care system is not important to or valued by Canadians. Quite the opposite. But the Canada Health Act is not a 'value'. Generosity and compassion are values. The sense that none of us should have to face largely random catastrophic costs alone is a value. Public health insurance, on the other hand, is merely a vehicle through which those values are expressed.

Federal multiculturalism is a lot like the Canada Health Act. It reflects various realties that exist across the country, but it is not of itself a Canadian value. But by imposing a standard, bureaucratic vision of cultural diversity, the official policies have ultimately undermined, diluted and distorted the expression of actual multiculturalism. I don't agree that official multicultarism has been an "indulgence toward immigrants". I think it more likely that this policy has been a hindrance to immigrants, inhibiting their ability to integrate into Canadian society. If it does anything, federal policy ought to focus on strengthening the (civic) national identity.