I was 13 years of age at the time, of Egyptian origin living in a French colony at a time when France had teamed up with other jurisdictions to fight against Egypt.
All I knew from my earlier experiences, was that wars
were bad things, having watched the expression of horror on the faces of adults
as they reacted to the Korean and Vietnam wars. Was I supposed to feel sadder now
that Egypt, which I left at the age of 20 months of age, was involved in a war?
Or was I supposed to sing the songs taught in school, proclaiming that Alsace
and Lorrain were French territories that the German are trying to steal?
No matter. I was too young to think of these things at
the time, but the trouble with me, is that many of the things which left an impression
on me as a youngster, lingered on in my memory and kept nagging me as I grew
older, as if determined that I should find an explanation for them by a more
developed intellect.
One of those things were the rumors that circulated among
the French adults, to the effect that the Americans were happy to see the
Egyptians blockade the Suez Canal on the advice of the Soviets. This delayed
the business of the Western European nations which suited the Soviets just fine.
But what about the Americans? Why were they happy? Were they not allied with
the Western Europeans?
Yes, they were. But what I learned as an adult was that
alliances of convenience do form on the basis of both sides hating a third
party. The two will remain loyal to each other on the surface, but will rejoice
to see the other guy (moral sibling) suffer a mishap that will reduce his “competitive
edge.” Thus, while the Americans were denouncing the blockading of the Canal,
they were applauding the move.
And then I came to Canada, and saw time after time how
that reality played itself in the everyday life of nations.
It all began with the speechwriters of Ronald Reagan. I
found them to be the most prolific at mining what I wrote, and attributing the
ideas to their boss. But the old man himself did not shy away from using me to
exploit the situation, deriving benefits for America at Canadian expense. Reagan
did it by telling the Canadian Government he will soften his demands with
regard to the contentious issues of softwood lumber only if Canada ended the
problem of my persecution, knowing that Canada will not do it.
It happened again when the issue of packaging meat, and
the trade thereof between the two countries, came up. There too, America won
the dispute because Canada refused to end its persecution of me in return for a
softening of America’s demand. In fact, things got so bad in Western Canada, desperate
people began to commit suicide, and the honchos of the Canadian Government did
not care. Here too, America derived benefits for itself at the expense of Canada.
And then, it happened one more time with the dairy
industries. This time it was the farmers of Quebec and Ontario who were most
affected. They were so desperate in Quebec, several committed suicide, and
others shot their cows in the head in plain view of journalists. But the Canadian
Government refused to end its persecution of me in return for the lives of farmers
and their cows. Here again, America derived benefits for itself at the expense
of Canada.