Yves Engler is a Canadian writer and political activist. He came to UFV to talk about his latest book A Propaganda System: How Canada’s Government, Corporations, Media and Academia Sell War and Exploitation. Engler’s book focuses on the common belief that Canada is an international force for good and operates as a benevolent peacekeeper despite their support for empire, racism, and exploitation.
Engler has written extensively for alternative press and various mainstream magazines.
What is the book about?
It’s about information dissemination and suppression in Canadian foreign policy; answering the question of why the majority of Canadians think this country is a force for good in the world despite a long history of Canada supporting the British Empire, American empire, and Canadian corporations abroad, so trying to explain why we’re so confused about our government’s role in world.
What does that problematize?
I think by shining a light on how information is controlled, you’re putting those institutions a bit more on the defensive. A common question I get at talks is people saying, “What you’ve described is so terrible, how is that possible, that doesn’t align with what I’ve heard elsewhere.” But when you show that the reason it doesn’t align with what they’ve heard elsewhere, it’s not because it’s not true but because it goes counter to all these powerful institutions that are trying to convince us of something else.
It helps to make the case that Canadian foreign policy is about serving imperial interests and corporate interests, and also puts those institutions a little bit under the gun. And it points the way to what’s needed, which is to build up other institutions that are willing to challenge power and foreign policy.
You said something in your talk about Remembrance Day poppies. What are your thoughts about wearing poppies?
I would counsel people not to do it, because I think that most people view it as something that’s about commemorating veterans. It’s also part of an ideological battle to convince us that our cause is righteous and that our military is righteous, and in fact if you look at history that is not the case. There’s only one war that Canada has been part of that was morally justifiable and that was WW2. And I think more specifically the organization, the Canadian Legion that’s behind the poppy, is also an organization that I don’t think most people would be that enthused by their political leanings, ie. their pro-military spending, racist sentiments in the past.
What got you interested in the study of foreign policy, specifically Canadian foreign policy?
I got interested in studying Canadian foreign policy basically when Canada overthrew Haiti’s elected government in 2004. I had taken a history of Haiti course a couple of years earlier, and I saw before the coup a certain destabilization that was picking up after the elected government. I saw that this was happening, and secondly, that Canada had some hands in it. And I saw more and more Canadian involvement in the coup and post-coup process and basically, I engaged with the Haiti solidarity activism for a couple of years, quite aggressively and intensely. Going into the coup in Haiti I had this general sense, one that most Canadians have, which is that Canada is sort of a benevolent force internationally. So I believed the mythology. What happened in Haiti very much challenged that and made me question my assumptions about Canada’s role in the world. So after engaging in Haiti solidarity and activism for a couple years I co-authored a book about the coup. I basically said, well, if Canada did this in Haiti, what has it done elsewhere?
Whose problem is it, Canadian foreign policy?
At some level it’s the victim’s problem, most of those victims are probably still not living in Canada. From a moral standpoint it should be those who the policies are being pursued under their name or with their tax dollars or with their support. So I think that you can make a political case that Canadians have a self-interest in not allowing their government to just advance the interests of corporations.
Should over $20 billion a year be put into military, or should it be put into social spending? Cut the military budget in half and put 10 bill into building light rail in abbotsford and 50 other communities across the country or with 1.5 billion you could have free education for every university student in the country. That’s a sliver of the military’s budget.
What do you see as some of the biggest issues that are facing us now as Canadian citizens?
I think the biggest issues we are facing are climate questions. Canada is, per capita an incredibly high emitter of carbon emissions. Canada has one of the worst sources of dirty oil in the tar sands.
Since so much of this doesn’t affect citizens personally or elicit direct consequences, how do you fight apathy?
How we do it at an individual level is just by doing it. We can’t control other people but we can influence them through our own choices. It’s just by getting active; part of what apathy is, is believing other people won’t do it. So by doing it we are undermining apathy.
Would you say you are doing that personally?
For sure, I try to get involved at all kinds of different levels. Part of what writing a book and what writing articles is for is to challenge Canadian foreign policy that will anger people and educate people to get active. During the “Ugly Canadian Stephen Harper Foreign Policy” book tour, one of the things we did is print a couple hundred thousand stickers saying “Stop Harper’s crimes,” and I personally put up tens of thousands of those stickers, and the objective of those stickers is to put out a message. Part of putting up a poster for an event is about breaking apathy, part of handing out a leaflet at a demonstration is trying to engage and mobilize people which undercuts apathy.
A lot of what you’ve written doesn’t get published by mainstream media, why is that?
Because it challenges power would be the simple explanation. Because the corporate media only allows for a very narrow range of debate on foreign policy issues, and a lot of what I write is viewed as outside of bounds in that range of debate.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity
