August 13, 2006–The government of Canada is getting poor advice from the 5th estate. One of the crucial roles of a free press in a democratic society is to offer up to leaders advice on public policy questions with the authority and legitimacy that derives from the size of the newspaper’s readership. That’s why the bigger the readership, the more influence the paper is said to have among policy-makers in government.

While the opinion and editorial (op-ed) pages and letters section is where various voices are given the opportunity to speak through the oracular device of the newspaper, it is the so-called “unsigned editorials,” usually opposite the op-ed page, where the paper’s senior staff and publisher make known to the public and leaders alike their views on issues of the day.

In the biggest papers, it is advice policy-makers should and do pay very close attention to, for it may be the only chance they have to develop policy on the fly during rapidly-evolving events that will be generally accepted by the people of the nation. There are other sources for leaders to learn of long-range considerations on issues, like university experts, industry groups, and think tanks, in addition to the knowledge and advice of the government’s own bureaucracy. But for advice on immediate questions, big newspapers’ op-ed pages and unsigned editorials often provide not only the leading source of advice, they can, for crucial early days in a crisis, be the only source of advice. And the senior staff and publishers of those big newspapers know this.

That’s why the Globe and Mail’s senior staff and publisher risk criminal negligence for publishing, on Monday, August 7, an unsigned editorial completely denouncing Hezbollah and completely exonerating Israel in reaction to the present conflict in Lebanon. By publicly urging a strongly pro-Israeli position on the Canadian government, the Globe and Mail has endorsed the Israeli policy of bombardment of crowded civilian areas.

If the government were to heed the advice of the Globe and Mail—and it likely will, since the government is leaning heavily in a similar direction already—there can be no good to come of it for Canadian public interests, let alone for the people of Lebanon, Israel, and indeed, people of the whole world. But for Canadian big business interests, the hard-line pro-Israeli, anti-Hezbollah advice is suitable.

Canada’s position in the world is as an exporter of raw goods, and as a financial and knowledge centre highly connected to Europe, Asia, and American markets. Publicly, Canadian business and political leaders have always claimed that our economy thrives best when the world is at peace and export-import shipping lines are free and open. But the Globe and Mail’s position on the Middle East conflict puts the lie to that claim.

Historically, raw materials like minerals, oil, and wood, sell very well in war-oriented economies. Canada, bounded by the forbidding Arctic, two wide oceans, and the most powerful military in the world, can market itself to global investors as a safe haven in times of conflict. Fear of Chinese state violence in Hong Kong, similar to what occurred at Tiananmen Square, fueled a prosperous real estate boom in Canada in the 1990s, prior to the handover of Hong Kong.

Canadian businesses have long benefited from foreign-trained technicians choosing to leave their foreign homes and come to Canada, usually because of war.

Our own emerging knowledge economy has grown fat on the contracts let by the US military and quasi-military agencies, like the famous CanadArm on the space shuttle and new work connected to the US missile defence scheme. Though no leaders would ever explicitly say so, there is wide-spread conviction in the executive suites and party leader offices in Canada that war is good for the Canadian economy, and has never really hurt Canada the way war has hurt virtually every other nation on the planet.

The Globe and Mail has never made any bones about being identified with—even being the official voice of—big business interests in Canada. It is certainly difficult to recall a single instance of the Globe and Mail issuing an opinion on any issue important to the executive suites on Bay Street that ran counter to their opinions and interests. Indeed, the reason political leaders read the Globe and Mail’s opinion pages is precisely to find out what Canada’s business leaders are thinking about evolving government policies on unfolding issues.

In this reading, we can say that Canada’s big business culture, in wholeheartedly supporting Israel and completely dismissing Hezbollah, has chosen large regional all-out war in Lebanon and northern Israel—possibly involving also Syria, Iran, and the US—as the best scenario to secure Canadian business interests.

For there can be no doubt that continued Israeli bombardment of civilian targets in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, can lead to nothing else but wider, more destructive war in reply. Regardless of anyone’s opinion of what is justified or not among any of Israel’s or Hezbollah’s actions, we do know that all-out Israeli bombardment of cities and towns in Lebanon can only make matters worse. Far from disarming Hezbollah and reducing the ranks of those who would do harm to Israel, all of world history assures us that Israel’s actions will only increase the ranks of those willing to fight her, and redouble their efforts to arm themselves appropriately.

Canadian big businesses, as evidenced by the Globe and Mail’s editorial, welcome and encourage this scenario, and want the Canadian government to join the US in urging Israel to continue on its present course. War in the Middle East serves Canadian business interests very well—even if it serves the Canadian public interest, and the interests of global humanity, very poorly.