The Canadian government’s support for the U.S. and Israeli bombing campaign against Iran was initially firm and unwavering. Things took a quick but slight turn when Canada’s prime minister clarified that he supported strikes against Iran “with some regret.”
“Canada’s position remains clear: the Islamic Republic of Iran is a major source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East,” Canada’s prime minister first said in a statement posted on social media on Saturday after U.S. President Donald Trump announced military strikes against Iran. “Canada supports U.S. action to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and preventing its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”
Statements by Carney and Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand (one of Anand’s statements has since been deleted) prompted a backlash from Canadians and human rights groups, forcing the prime minister to recalibrate Canada’s position at a news conference in Australia during a tour of Asia-Pacific trade talks.
“The United States and Israel acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada,” he amended. “Canada reiterates that international law governs all belligerent conduct… We implore all parties, including the United States and Israel, to respect the rules of international engagement.”
The prime minister also said: “This is a case between the United States and Israel, and those who are more professional than me – and I am certainly not an international lawyer – who are more professional in making this decision… It appears that these actions are not in compliance with international law.”
Ya!
We also asked them whether Carney’s revised remarks were sufficient.
Mark, what do you say was Carney’s initial statement about US and Israeli access to Iran being a success or a failure. Please explain.
Mark Kersten
(Courtesy photo)
Mark Kersten: Carney is absolutely right, now is the time to express solidarity and support for the oppressed people of Iran, who have suffered so many atrocities and human rights violations – not just the recent disappearance of thousands and torture, but also the lack of accountability for decades. Many have called for the Iranian perpetrators to be investigated and prosecuted, including in Canada. So it is 100% right to oppose this regime; there is no ambiguity there.
What the Prime Minister failed to notice was that he did not seem to believe that international law was relevant – international lawyers agreed that this was an illegal war. The question, therefore, is not whether the Iranian regime should continue to exist or oppress its citizens. It shouldn’t be.
International lawyers agree it was an illegal war.
The question is, first of all, does international law have a place? Second: What are the costs of abandoning international law simply because you don’t want it to apply to a country or regime you don’t like? I think that by not applying international law to countries you don’t like, you are dangerously undermining the protections that international law provides to countries and people. My concern is that if we do not consistently note the application of international law, and violations outside the scope of the United Nations Charter – if we do not consistently apply those international laws – then we will be in a much weaker position to condemn or articulate the application of international law when Cuba’s sovereignty is violated, which many believe will happen next.
How does Canada view the fact that we consider threats to Greenland’s territorial sovereignty to be unacceptable when we do not demand the same from all countries?
The prime minister adjusted the government’s stance on March 3 because everyone understood from day one that these attacks on Iran were illegal, creating pressure. But many are confused by the revised stance. In the words of iHeart Radio Talk Network’s Bill Carroll: “Canada supports a war that we believe is illegal. What’s that position?”
Sean Martinez
(polite)
Shawn Martinez: The prime minister’s statement failed to explain the government’s position after Canada faced public backlash for supporting illegal aggression by the United States and Israel against Iran.
Carney called for a “strategy to rapidly de-escalate hostilities” while abandoning support for attacks that he acknowledged were spreading the conflict and threatening civilian lives.
The Prime Minister has not withdrawn his support for the United States and Israel – both countries have committed serious breaches of the United Nations Charter. He reminds us, rather disingenuously, that “international law is binding on all belligerents.” His statement expressed a vague sentiment of “regret” for Canada’s position, but suggested that Canada took it because of “the failure of the international order.”
This attempt at rationalization is a maze of contradictions: the prime minister is essentially saying that while international law should prevail, recognition of these violations is necessary to achieve an elusive peace, even if said “peace” requires diplomatic engagement. The only coherence that needs to be extracted is that liberalism once again served imperial interests.
The Prime Minister is essentially saying that while international law should prevail, it is necessary to recognize these violations in order to achieve an elusive peace
Adding to the mixed messages, the Prime Minister said, “We can never categorically rule out engagement. We support our allies.” Will this ping-pong stance on Iran weaken or even eliminate the impact of his much-lauded policies? speech World Economic Order Conference in Davos, Switzerland?
MK: A few weeks ago, Carney said in Davos that as a middle power that is both pragmatic and principled, Canada will defend its territorial integrity, sovereignty and the United Nations Charter and oppose the use of force unless authorized by the Charter under two exceptions that exist under international law. Almost immediately, we choose not to do any of these things. Our calculation is, “Look, this isn’t Cuba or Greenland or Ukraine. This is our historical enemy: We have no diplomatic relations with Iran — Stephen Harper’s government closed those relations. So our calculation is to side with the United States in order to curry favor with them in difficult economic negotiations.”
This has nothing to do with defense [the people of] Iran. You can defend international law without defending a country. You can say that international law applies without saying that you support it in a way that allows a particularly brutal regime to persist or continue to exist or oppress its people. There is a way to say these things at the same time. This regime should end and the Iranian people deserve better than the cruelty and oppression they have experienced. At the same time, international law protects territorial integrity and sovereignty and prohibits the use of force except in very limited circumstances. This is important not only in some places but everywhere because these rules of international law are not about individual states but about collective security across the globe. There are very, very few examples of the unlawful use of force to further protect civilians.
You can say that international law applies without saying that you support it in a way that allows a particularly brutal regime to persist.
In his Davos speech, Carney said what most of the world is saying, namely that this rules-based order essentially does not exist and that what it really is is hypocrisy masquerading as global politics. He said Canada has contributed to this by allowing the United States to do whatever it wants more or less frequently, and that will change. I think people took the Davos speech as a sign that something different was going to happen.
To this day, one of the defining moments in Canadian history was that we did not go into Iraq with the United States. This is a quintessentially Canadian moment because we agree with them on so many other things. Now, this is especially difficult for Carney because on the one hand you want to get rid of that dependence; On the other hand, you want to avoid the possibility that your territorial integrity may be violated in the future and your sovereignty may be threatened or weakened by the United States in the future. This is not an easy tightrope to walk. We must take this seriously. But if we treat international law as an afterthought and basically say it doesn’t matter here (as we did with Iran), then we weaken our ability to speak out and get others to side with us when our territorial sovereignty is put in the crosshairs.
SM: In the speech, [it seemed like] The Prime Minister promised a new path. The only point in the speech that allowed for an acknowledgment of fact was that Canada was placed in the same position as it had historically been for its contributions to other countries. Only Canada is in a somewhat comparable position—a far cry from what the Global South is experiencing—but once it comes into conflict with the United States in some way, we see it recognizing this arrangement or “order.”
So there’s some truth to that, but I don’t think there’s any sincerity behind doing things differently. At least not in terms of who benefits. The same class-based interests will ultimately benefit. There will be no transfer of power of any kind. It’s a different approach, but ultimately yields the same result.
The contradiction with the Iran speech is that Carney specifically issued a statement in support of illegal imperialist wars within a short time of his speech in Davos, which is enough to illustrate that this contraction is so obvious. It shows what you can say one day – that he can acknowledge the truth about this fundamentally unfair arrangement and take a position the next day, as he did on Iran – just reaffirming the problems he identified in that speech.
We have to remember that this is a problem for We the People. For the interests of the ruling class, this is not a problem. They hope to maintain the status quo by supporting actions taken by the United States and Israel here.
