Attain While Canada Slept: How We Lost Our Place In The World Illustrated By Andrew Cohen Conveyed As Booklet

interesting look at Canada's place in the world and the changes of the lastyears, Well done, but slightly one sided and boring, For how much longer can Canada expect to get a free ride

With/and the international “war on terrorism,” the time has come to ask some hard questions.
Should we continue to starve our military, reduce our humanitarian assistance, dilute our diplomacy, and absent ourselves from global intelligencegathering Can we expect to sit at the global table by virtue of our economic power without pursuing a foreign policy worthy of our history, geography, and diversity

Canada has been getting by on the cheap, writes Andrew Cohen in this timely, forceful, and insightful new book.
Our reluctance to pay our own way has had a cost: it has eroded the pillars of our international stature.
We are still trading on the reputation this country built two generations ago, but it is a reputation we no longer deserve.
We claim to be engaged abroad, but for too long we have been a freeloader, trying to do the same for less, practising pinchpenny diplomacy and foreign policy on the cheap.
Our capacity in these key areas has become glaringly inadequate, and now that weakness is compromising our ability to honour our traditional commitments overseas.


The time is ripe for a thorough reexamination of our foreign policy, to affirm our values, to win the respect of our allies, to carry our weight.



From the Hardcover edition, Here is a critical review I had to write for class, Hopefully, it's good. . :

Andrew Cohen is a graduate from McGill University, He is an “awardwinning journalist and bestselling author”, Over his career of twentyfive years, he has written extensively on international affairs, A columnist, he has written for the Ottawa Citizen, United Press International, the Financial Post, Saturday Night, and the Globe and Mail.
He has also been part of the editorial board, and was a foreign correspondent in Washington, Currently, he is a television/radio commentator, and writes columns for several newspapers, “He is an associate professor at the School of Journalism and Communication and the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs of Carleton University in Ottawa,” and a former member of the Centre of International Studies in Cambridge University.
Presently, he lives in Ottawa with his family, One of his previous works is A Deal Undone: The Making and Breaking of the Meech Lake Accord, and he has coedited Trudeaus Shadow: The Life and Legacy of Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

While Canada Slept is a book reviewing Canadas selfimage, It maintains the eeriness that something is not quite right not the way it seems, As the title of the second chapter, Cohen uses the term “Potekim Canada”, The Potekim village was a painted facade of a prosperous, happy village in Russia, standing against the Volga River to impress the Empress Catherine on her route inshe wanted to see the prosperity of her kingdom, but as it did not exist, her minister erected this false village.
Cohen argues that Canada has become much the same for Canadians: it is no longer as ambitious and farreaching as it was in its Golden Age while Canadians still believe it to be.
He argues that the Canadian government has deteriorated our identity in the world by diminishing Canadas services as a donor, diplomat, and soldier.
Consequently, this has reduced the Canadian sense of self as well, Today, from a citizens stand point, it is visible in the languid, aimless progression of the youth population the lack of will, Cohen criticises the government of, embodies itself in Canadas citizens.

Cohen writes in an objective, omnipresent voice walking through history from the Golden Age after the Cold War until, and reaching into the future by interpretational thoughts of three major political upbringers: Hume Wrong, Norman Robertson, and Lester Pearson.
As seen by these three, he establishes Canadas determined identity as a military, diplomatic, benevolent, and trading figure as it was in the Golden Age.
Cohen does not fail to mention the Golden Age could have itself been a pompous illusion, but states that the presented views are historically what Canadians live by, and have no reason not to be strived for.
He points out some of the realities: Canada had some of the largest armies in its short history, but it no longer cares for having one Canada was never naturally a peacekeeper as we like to think it only took up the task after the Cold War when no one else could, and currently continues to do less and less missions Canadas financial aid program originated as a subtle trading project and as a prevention for the spread of communism even though it has grown to be more altruistic, it is now disorganized, ineffective, and serves mainly for Canadas prestige.
Statistically, the problem of these programs can be summarized as underfunded, Canada does not put money where its mouth is, and has no will to, As Cohen says, Canada will not become “alldancing, allsinging” like it wanted to be, and will continue to gradually fade from being a significant power in the world through the suffocation of such key divisions.
With passionate fury, he concludes that the Canadian government must redeem itself, and should not allow itself to stoop to mediocrity.
If Canada excuses itself, and continues this way, it will lose its international value, which is gravely important as Canada generatesof its income on exports.
With a minute, illequipped military it cannot even transport with the help of US aircraft it will leave itself defenceless in a crisis, and useless in any other military operation.
At home, Canadas news becomes less and less international, and history loses its value in education as Canada loses its pride.
In the end, Cohen substantially shows patriotic is not a word in Canadas vocabulary,
Unfortunately, Cohen removes momentum from his cry when he mentions that Canada does the best it can with what it has, and that is what holds its place in the world.
He also loses some steam by concretely demonstrating how well Canadas trade is doing, which takes away from the sense of urgency.
If Canadians, through the influencing state of the government, have become unwilling, giving them a sense that everything is fine is not encouraging.
Also, even if he states a general plan of action, it is hard for the unwilling to start there are many areas the government needs to reassess and tackle, and it is unclear where to begin.
Furthermore, he rejects the idea of a completely new plan, such as developing Canadas involvement in multiculturalism, which might be more necessary than ineffectual, desperate attempts to repair the grandiose holes in the existing system.

Cohen writes in a formal, critical essay format, which flows like a story, In an effective manner, he repeats his major points as to assert them, while staying concise, He uses many statistics, biographical references, and first accounts from the decedents of Pearson and Robertson as solid foundations for his ideas.
He writes from a grey perspective he reviews all sides, Overall, he wrote a wellworded book that is easy to understand and learn from despite its great deal of information.
As an informational text, the book is dreary in some parts, but that is to be expected, Possibly, he could have abandoned some formality for a more personal feel that would appeal to typical Canadians an audience he must reach to achieve his purpose of change in a democratic society.
Either way, this book could fit into Civics, History, or English courses as a reading which brings students up to speed on political happenings of Canada since around the Cold War till today.
Accordingly, the book is very journalistic, and brings forth a heavy reality that must be known,
Six out of ten,

I'd have rated this book higher fifteen or twenty years ago its primary weakness is its pragmatic focus on the missteps of the late Chretien and early Martin governments and on a world freshly wounded by/.
Cohen also spends just enough time eulogizing Canada's postwar diplomats: Hume Wrong, Norman Robertson, and Lester Pearson,

Having said that, the book speaks frankly to Canada's declining presence on the world stage and attempts to offer some solutions or at least compromises: better funding for the military and the diplomatic corps more focused and judicious aid programs more holistic education and media coverage on world affairs.
I definitely sit a little to Cohen's left, but his matteroffact knowledge is hard to argue with,

I recommend this book to Canadians, especially to those invested in their country and the surrounding world.
I'd also read an updated version of this, I'm afraid that I was decidedly unimpressed with this book, It's a book I have wanted to read for some time, so I was happy to discover it on a bookshelf here in Pader, but it turned out to be seriously underwhelming.
Two might seem unduly harsh, since two is something I usually reserve for books I really didn't like one star is usually reserved for books I would actively discourage people from reading, but the reality that I probably would discourage people from reading this book.
Which is an odd thing, seeing as I agree with his overall point,

His overall point is that Canada is coasting on it's reputation, and that Canadians view Canada as it was rather than as it is.
Most Canadians talk proudly of battles from WWI and WWII, but we're not capable of anything like that anymore.
Most Canadians think we're still heavily involved in peacekeeping, but we aren't, Most Canadians think we're generous in our international aid, but I have personal experience of the fact that our impact abroad is getting smaller and smaller at least directly through CIDA there are many Canadian NGOs, missionaries, and development workers around the world who are doing wonderful work.
Canada gives less than it used to, too much of it's aid was tied aid at the time of the writing of this book, and CIDA has shifted it's guiding principle from charity to economic benefit.
And we're losing our influence abroad, in regards to our foreign service, though that's rather less on the radar of most Canadians.


Yet, even though I agree with his main point, I still found many issues with the book:

My first and biggest issue with the book is that he has only complaints, rarely solutions.
In apage book, which is ostensibly about how we can regain our place in the world, he spends exactlypages talking about solutions four and a half pages on foreign aid, four pages on the foreign service, three and a half pages on the military, and one page on international trade.
And his solutions are not detailed or innovative, In fact they're usually little more than platitudes, This is a serious problem, because it makes the book one long rant, and it comes across mostly like he has an axe to grind in particular he uses the book as a platform to assault the Liberal government.
That may make for good readership it was certainly a national bestseller in Canada, but it doesn't do much for me.
It's particularly annoying that he ignores any positive trends, saying they're illusory, despite the fact that hindsight informs us that many of those solutions have worked.

My second complaint is his obsession with the "golden age" of Canadian internationalism, and in particular the "three musketeers" of the Canadian Department of External Affairs Hume Wrong, Norman Robertson, and Lester Pearson.
He begins the book by writing about them, He ends the book by writing about them, He invokes them constantly throughout the book "What would Pearson think if he saw Canada today, . . ". He is overly enamoured with them and this supposed golden age, and he misses or ignores the many unique conditions which converged to make it possible.
It's simply not possible to recreate those conditions, and as such Canada's current achievements shouldn't be compared with this era.
What's more, you could be forgiven for thinking the book is a biography of Wrong, Robertson, and Pearson, I haven't actually counted the pages, but it certainly feels like he spent more time talking about them than about the current state of Canada.

My third complaint is that he seems blinded by the "middle power" theory, I actually like the middle power theory of Canadian international relations, but I find it a bit disappointing that no one seems to be able to break that mold and look to different and new ideas.


Aside from these complaints, I disagree with him on several points or at the very least I feel that he ignores important factors on several points:

He decries Canada's withdrawal from peacekeeping, without seriously addressing the complexities arising from the shift from peacekeeping to peaceenforcing.
Having just read Romeo Dallaire's book Shake Hands with the Devil I have little patience with anyone who simply says we should throw ourselves into peacekeeping without first dealing with the serious underlying issues.

He complains about the fact that Canada is turning away from multilateral trade instruments, and focusing more on bilateral trade instruments, but doesn't seem to take into account the changing nature of international trade negotiations.
Multilateral trade agreements used to involve getting the support of only a handful of countries, but now it takes dozens if not more.
The Doha Development Round negotiations have been ongoing for more than a decade, and still haven't come to any agreement.

He wants Canada to concentrate it's foreign aid fewer countries, fewer projects, fewer sectors, mostly because it will lower overhead costs, without an understanding of how that would undermine the effectiveness of that aid.
I've seen first hand the impact of his approach, and it's not good,
And lastly, he wants Canada to help the poorest of the poor but he doesn't want Canada to work in countries that are too corrupt or too undemocratic, but he fails to understand the fact that one directly contradicts the other.
There's a reason why those countries are the poorest of the poor, and ignoring the poor and shifting our aid to countries that are better off doesn't help.
That doesn't mean we ignore issues of corruption or democracy in fact there are a wide variety of ways to handle the issues but it does mean we can't afford to ignore people just because of their governments.


So yes, as you might have guessed from my long rant, I

really wasn't impressed with this book.
I agree with his main point, but he fails to provide any solutions or in fact anything constructive or new, and he glosses over the complexities of the issues he's discussing.
.