James, "not so much in . .70 years"? How about Canada's influence as a middle power since 1945. You forgot NATO and Suez Crisis when the big powers dithered. For a country a tenth of our southern neighbour's population Canada pulled its weight. Germany today declares us as its closest and most dependable friend.
From NOAC, “to promote peace, prosperity and security through knowledge and understanding of the importance of NATO”:
“In 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser took steps to nationalize the Suez Canal in order to reap the economic benefits. The canal, co-controlled by Britain and France, was an important military and economic. Assisted by France and Israel, the British invaded Egypt and re-seized control of the canal. Following the invasion, which could have led to outright war between the parties involved, the Canadian Secretary of External Affairs, L.B. Pearson stepped in and advocated for a UN contingent of troops to impede open warfare. Thanks to Pearson’s efforts, a UN peacekeeping force called the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was established. As a result of Canada’s important contribution to the creation of UNEF, peacekeeping and the pursuit of peace became a kind of self-sustaining theme and objective of Canadian foreign relations for several decades. Canada’s role in peacekeeping was perceived very differently to its role in western organizations. Misconceptions about Canada’s role in the Suez crisis led to the belief that it intervened to uphold international law, when, in fact, its goal was to prevent outright confrontation between NATO and Commonwealth member states, which could have resulted in the demise of these organizations.
"Canada had a vested foreign policy interest in resolving the Suez Crisis. Pearson believed that Anglo-American relations, the UN, a functioning Commonwealth and NATO were the pillars for peace, freedom and change within the world. The future of these organizations was placed in jeopardy as a result of the Suez Crisis. The U.S., fearing that Egypt would align itself with the Soviet Union, went as far as threatening to dump both the British and French currencies, paving the way for a financial crisis in both states. Such an event would have led to a major rift among member states or the demise of NATO and the Commonwealth. Consequently, Canada, in a bid to protect its national interests, sought to ensure that the allies avoided a confrontation and maintained good relations. As an Indian diplomat remarked: “Canada’s attitude on Suez was the only thing that saved the Commonwealth from dissolution.”
And, from Wikipedia, here’s Canada and NATO, James:
"Canada has been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) since its inception in 1949.[1] Canada was not only a member but one of the principal initiators (founding countries) of the alliance.[2] This Atlanticist outlook was a marked break with Canada's pre-war isolationism, and was the first peacetime alliance Canada had ever joined. However, Canadian officials such as Hume Wrong and Lester B. Pearson and including Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent worked in favour of the alliance not only because they sought to contain the Soviet Union, as did other members, but because they hoped the treaty would help to eliminate any potential rivalries between the United States, the United Kingdom, and other European great powers (principally at the time France, but later including West Germany), where Canada would be forced to choose sides.[2] This had long been the overriding goal of Canadian foreign policy. The main Canadian contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty was Article 2 which committed members to maintain a "free" political system and to promote economic cooperation, in addition to the more usual diplomatic and military matters.[2] However trans-Atlantic unity in political and economic matters has not come to fruition, as European states have looked toward the European Union and its antecedents while North America has the North American Free Trade Agreement.”
Despising the Liberal Party as you do, and deserving as they are at times, no reason for not giving credit to leadership and country where it's due.
