Back To Bootlicking

 

Last year, I wrote a number of posts critical of Prime Minister Carney. His efforts at appeasing Donald Trump took several forms, none of which were consistent with the "elbows up" rhetoric that helped propel him and his party to victory in the last election. Over time, however, I developed a more than grudging respect for him , especially after he started making a concerted effort to broaden our trade relations so as to reduce reliance on the American mutated giant now threatening the world. Carney's peerless Davos speech solidified my respect.

Now, however, all of his words seem like empty rhetoric. The reason, of course, is the Prime Minister's  feckless endorsement of the American and Israeli war on Iran, a war that could go on for quite some time, a war without any clear objectives other than regime change, a war that will cost countless lives. 

For today's post, I am excerpting the commentary of three people: Sid Ryan, Lloyd Axworthy, and Justin Ling, If you are an unadulterated Carney fan, you might want to skip the rest of this post.

Sid Ryan, in a Facebbook post, writes:

Canada: The Loyal Poodle To American Foreign Policy

Canada has once again proven itself the loyal poodle to American foreign policy, tail-wagging in obedience as the US and Israel launch an unprovoked assault on Iran's sovereignty. Prime Minister Mark Carney's swift endorsement of this illegal attack—echoing Trump's claims of obliterating Iran's nuclear program only to now insist it's an imminent threat—exposes his much-lauded Davos speech as hollow rhetoric. There, he boldly decried the "might is right" order and the erosion of rules-based international norms under great powers. Yet here he is, turning a blind eye to blatant violations, just as Canada did throughout the Gaza genocide.

The hypocrisy runs deep: Israel, with its undeclared nuclear arsenal built on stolen secrets and shielded from IAEA scrutiny, lectures Iran while aggressors rewrite international law. Iran, whatever its regime's flaws, holds the legal right to self-defense under the UN Charter. Canada's acquiescence buries that principle, leaving international law on life support amid endless selective outrage.

Lloyd Axworthy has this to say about Carney's craven caving:

We invoke international law and the “rules based international order” when adversaries engage in unlawful actions, but abandon those same rules entirely when it’s the Americans — whose current government 60 per cent of Canadians now see as a threat — doing the bombing. For a country that depends on law more than force for its own security, that is not realism; it is recklessness.

Ottawa’s statement on the attack is telling for what it says, and what it refuses to say.

The Canadian government condemns Iran as a destabilizing actor, insists Tehran must “never be allowed” to obtain nuclear weapons, and declares that Canada “supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” The statement also reaffirms Israel’s right to self-defence. Yet it never once invokes the language that any legally grounded justification would require: self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, or authorization by the UN Security Council.

The term self-defence has a very narrow definition under Article 51:

Under the UN Charter, cross-border uses of force are prohibited except in two narrow cases: collective decisions of the Security Council, or self defence in response to an actual or truly imminent armed attack. Operation Epic Fury, as the U.S. has dubbed it, fits neither. There is no Security Council mandate, and Ottawa has not tried to argue that Washington and Jerusalem are responding to an attack that is “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means.” Instead, it supports bombing to “prevent” Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon — the classic logic of preventive war.

Axworthy goes on to point out the hypocrisy of Canada's position, in that it has always used the language of condemnation when it comes to Russia's war on Ukraine. An American war of aggression against Iran, however, uses entirely different language and tone: 

No talk of aggression, no warning about Charter erosion, no insistence on emergency debate in New York. The double standard is obvious: when Russia uses force without lawful grounds, it is condemned as an outlaw; when the U.S. does something legally analogous, we kowtow in an effort to curry favour.

Justin Ling offers his view on this debacle:

... the warmongers have found a fan in Prime Minister Mark Carney. Saturday morning, Carney released a statement announcing that he “supports the United States” in its strikes on Iran.

 It is a feckless, bewildering, totally unnecessary position. It should call into question the prime minister’s supposed belief in the “prohibition of the use of force, except when consistent with the UN Charter,” as he told the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year.

Carney’s statement does not even make a boilerplate call for de-escalation. Instead, it cheerleads America “acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”

That is a painfully naive and obsequious statement which blindly accepts an entirely unconvincing casus belli. 

So here we are. Canada, while not joining in the aggression, is standing on the sidelines cheering Uncle Sam. One can only wonder what this obsequious, appeasing stance presages when it comes to the CUSMA review this summer.

So You Think The American Midterms Offer Hope?

Having seen a great deal through the years, I have grown quite pessimistic about the future, especially in regard to the U.S. Yes, there are those who put great hope in the American midterms, imagining Democratic majorities in one or both houses that will rectify the atrocities the Trump administration has authored. There are two reasons, in my view, to check that optimism.

One is that when it comes to the issue most preoccupying Canadians, trade, the Democrats have traditionally been a protectionist party, wary of too much free trade. Ironically, until recently the Republicans have been the party of free, open trade. As well, judging by their official spokespeople, the Democrats always seem to be testing the political winds for their stances, offering nothing too radical when it comes to addressing Trump's excesses. One example is that they largely suggest mild reforms, such as better training, bodycams and no masks for ICE agents, despite their predations. I stand to be corrected, but I am not aware they have questioned the essential mission of ICE: to ferret out illegals, who seem now to be labelled as criminals by virtue of their immigration status.

The second, more disquieting reason to dampen one's optimism is the very real question of whether the midterms will see free and fair elections. I have long speculated that Trump might call a 'national emergency' to interfere with those elections. That speculation appears to be nearer to reality, if this report is to be credited.

Lawyers in support of Donald Trump are pushing the president to declare a national emergency to expand his powers ahead of the midterm elections, according to new reports.

The pro-Trump activists’ draft executive order will claim China interfered in the 2020 election to propel a national emergency declaration to give the president unprecedented power over voting, The Washington Post first reported.

The canard that China interfered with the 2020 elections has no basis in fact, but that claim fits into the narrative the MAGATS are always spinning.

A National Intelligence Council report on foreign threats to the 2020 election was declassified in March 2021. The report found China “considered but did not deploy influence efforts intended to change the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election.”

Not to be deterred by reality, 

Peter Ticktin, a Florida lawyer who had represented Trump in a later dismissed 2022 lawsuit about claims his campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election, is pushing the draft executive order.

Indeed, Ticktin even has a solution to the pesky problem that states are the ones responsible for elections, not the national government.

“But here we have a situation where the president is aware that there are foreign interests that are interfering in our election processes.”

“That causes a national emergency where the president has to be able to deal with it,” he added.

On first glance, part of the new requirements, as outlined in  SAVE  (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act) appear reasonable. (This act has not been passed by the Senate, and likely won't be.): proof of citizenship and photo ID. However, things aren't quite so simple for some.

As of now, at least 9% of voting-age American citizens – approximately 21 million people – do not even have driver’s licenses, let alone proof of citizenship. In spite of this, many legislators support the bill as a means of eliminating noncitizen voting in elections.

However, keep in mind that this is just one act. Trump has plans for even more stringent measures:

“There will be Voter ID for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not! Also, the People of our Country are insisting on Citizenship, and No Mail-In Ballots, with exceptions for Military, Disability, Illness, or Travel,” the president wrote on Truth Social February 13.

Given the dystopian nature of Trump's Amerika, one can assume other measures will be in place as well at the midterms, including a heavy presence of ICE agents at polling stations with significant minority populations. If the Minnesota experience proves anything, where many stopped going to school, work, etc. for fear of being swept up by agents,  many, more nationally will be afraid to leave their homes to go to the polls, increasing the likelihood of massive voter suppression. 

It is one of the remaining potent tools available to an increasingly unpopular president and Republican Congress, who will not surrender power, even if democracy demands it.

Canadians' Thoughts On The Ugly American

I have been reading of late polls that address our feelings about our southern 'neighbour'. To be concise, we don't like or trust them anymore with, of course, very good reason. In today's Star, columnist Andrew Phillips distills the polls and offers his thoughts:

The headline that caught my eye late last week was this one: “Look how much Canadians hate the United States now.”

It was on Politico and it was propped up by the results of a major new poll that suggests a “lasting chill” has settled over relations between our two countries.

While the poll didn't use the word hate in its inquiry,  the results bespeak a deep distrust that has hardened over the past year or so.

If there was any doubt, there’s another poll out this week along the same lines. This one’s from Nanos Research in the Globe and Mail. It’s just as bleak.

Canadians have given up on the U.S. as a reliable ally (three-quarters of them in the Nanos survey, 58 per cent in Politico).

Far more Canadians see the U.S. as the biggest threat to peace (58 per cent) than Russia (29 per cent) or China (just 10 per cent), according to Politico.

Two-thirds of Canadians are concerned that the U.S. and Donald Trump are a security threat to Canada (Nanos). One in five (21 per cent) believe an invasion ordered by Trump is likely; only half dismiss that possibility.

Unsurprisingly, Canadians think we need to take our distance from the U.S. Fifty-seven per cent say it’s better to rely on China than on “the U.S. under Donald Trump” (Politico). Forty-four per cent favour more trade with China (Nanos).

Phillips suggests something I think most of us agree with: that lost trust will be difficult to regain, even after the mad king has passed into history.

It’ll take the Americans years, probably a generation, to rebuild trust — and only if whoever comes after wants to do any such thing, which is not a given.

And despite all of the criticism that the Conservatives, under PP, have lobbed against the Liberals for their failure to secure a new trade deal with the U.S., Canadians seem to understand that such a deal is unlikely under the mad king. 

It’s apparent to anyone who’s paid attention that a decent deal hasn’t been available and the blame for its absence lies at the feet of Trump.

Likewise, the anxious chorus coming out of segments of the business community to the effect that Canada must do everything to make sure the CUSMA trade deal is renewed this summer now sounds distinctly out of sync with the national mood. 

Canadians are no longer the naive, complacent and trusting souls we once might have been regarding the U.S. We have seen the enemy, and we will not easily forget him.

Judged By The Company You Keep

By the titled measure, I think we know how to evaluate Jamil Javani, the peripatetic Conservative who seems to have a special relationship with his old pal, JD Vance. Indeed, he even made it over to the chief MAGA propagandist, Breitbart News (formerly run by Steve Bannon), where he said, in regard to Canadian trade tensions wrought by Herr Trump's fits of pique,

Canadians would be “shooting ourselves in the foot if we continue this anti-America hissy-fit.”

In addition to media scrutiny over his unhelpful  comments, Toronto Star letter-writers have chimed in: 

“Anti-America, hissy fit,” is a rich statement coming from Jamil Jivani. His own “hissy fit” was on full display on election night, when he complained about Ontario Premier Doug Ford. This elected official seems to only care for promoting himself.

Paul Terech, Courtice, ON 

It’s difficult and problematic to have multiple voices speaking for the same political party. Having an MP saying one thing and the leader saying another is politically strange and probably not unifying. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says he speaks for the party and that Conservative MP Jamil Jivani speaks for himself. Does this mean that a member of the party can say anything, even if it’s at odds with the party line? The Conservatives have numerous opinions under their very big tent, but when dealing with the public, conflicting messaging does come across as ambiguous and somewhat puzzling.

Douglas Cornish, Ottawa, ON 

The race to sell out Canada

For the last few months, we’ve had a clear front-runner in the race to sell out to/bow down to/kiss the ring of our former American friends — the Alberta separatist movement. After reading  Conservative MP Jamil Jivani’s comments regarding Canada’s efforts to remain sovereign and united, it’s no longer clear. The separatists are  neck and neck with the federal Tories.

Craig Gibson, Thornhill, ON

In addition to being an embarassment to Canada, Jamani can't be earning any points with his leader, Pierre Poilievre, still fighting the latest defection from his party's ranks, with possibly more to come.

Some Editorial Reflections

Although throughout most of my life I have been an inveterate writer of letters to the editor, I rarely write such missives anymore, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. However, I do read editorial letters daily, and often like to acknowledge the keen insights contained therein. 

What follows are some of those insights:

Air Canada, WestJet, Air Transat suspend flights to Cuba, work to return travellers on island nation, feb. 11

Three people I  know in Toronto just cancelled their trips to Cuba. The reason they were given was a “shortage of fuel.” One of them said, almost casually, “It’s too bad my parents can’t go because of the fuel situation, while another one said, “Oh well, these things happen.”

The problem is not just a shortage of fuel. There is political strangulation that produces a fuel shortage. There are people making decisions that destroy livelihoods .

Cuba is being economically suffocated, and the people paying the price are not governments, but ordinary human beings: taxi drivers, hotel workers, musicians, café owners, guides, families who make their livings from tourism and human connection.

We are watching collective punishment.

It feels like we’re all in a school with a bully. Everyone knows who he is. Everyone knows what he’s doing. The rules exist. The charters exist. The teachers exist. And yet nothing happens. Not because no one sees it. But because everyone is afraid.

The bully is rich. He controls resources. He retaliates. He ignores norms. So the institution adapts. It stops enforcing rules and starts managing damage. Leadership becomes appeasement. Silence becomes strategy. This is how systems rot.

We are told to be calm. To be civil. To avoid anger. But there is something deeply corrupt about a world that demands politeness in the face of organized cruelty. Anger is not the problem. Moral numbness is.

Mary Y. Mouammar, Richmond Hill  

Do Republicans even know why they hate Canada?

Donald Trump threatens to block new Windsor-Detroit bridge, demands part ownership, Feb. 9

It is absolutely amazing how much U.S. President Donald Trump hates Canada. He is surrounded by a large group of sycophants who seem to hate everyone, with  Canada  at the top of the list. The problem is they react to things they do not understand, and they do not seem to look at facts. The Gordie Howe International Bridge is the subject of the latest stupidity. Canada paid for the bridge with Michigan’s co-operation and help in building it. That an American and a Canadian construction worker shook hands when both sides met in the middle  says it all, but the White House has no clue. 

Jack Hughes, Welland, ON

Tired of the insults, I’m no longer buying U.S. goods

As a senior living in southern Ontario, I have for years enjoyed the purchasing options of many U.S. branded products and services. I’ve purchased automobiles, major appliances, clothing, footwear, computers and  a wide range of American brands of food, home use cleaning chemicals, personal care items, lawn equipment and tools. I have also enjoyed  multiple  American-owned restaurant experiences. I’ve travelled south of the border and bought U.S.  entertainment  over the decades.

 Now I find myself  frustrated and tired of the ongoing insults from the current U.S. president claiming lack of respect and unfair treatment to America from Canada.

Now it’s time for me to move away from American products and  focus  on domestic  products and those  manufactured outside the U.S. — in countries that   value, appreciate and respect loyal customers.

Barry Brigham, London, ON

We could do more for Cuba 

I agree with the letter-writer who said she was happy to see that Mexico is offering some humanitarian aid to Cuba.

I would like to see Canada doing likewise. Is there any way that we can help Cuba with green energy? They have a great source of energy in sunlight, wind, and the ocean  to produce power on the island.

It puzzles me that the world stands by while a deranged president bullies the world into listening to his demands.

It breaks my heart that we are not doing more to help.

What has happened to Venezuela is unconscionable.

The Cubans are wonderful people and their island country is a good place to visit for those of us who love the sun, especially in the winter.

Lillian Shery, Toronto

While our government may have to be circumspect as it creeps around the mad king, it is clear that regular Canadians cannot and will not be silenced.

Some Pics From Bluesky

 I would say these capture the tenor of the times, eh?

  

Callousness Or Cowardice?

 

In my previous post, I spoke about Canada's strange silence regarding Cuba, despite its long relationship with the island nation. In today's Globe and Mail, a letter-writer addresses the issue: 

Double standard?

Re “Cuba loses its Canadian tourists” (Morning Update, Feb. 11): Mark Carney seems to understand international bullying. He calls for “a new order that embodies our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.” So why is he silent so far about the U.S. attempt to strangle Cuba?

Mr. Carney says Canada should be principled and act consistently, “applying the same standards to allies and rivals.” That appears to be Canada’s position when it comes Greenland, but what about Cuba?

Mr. Carney specifically says we can’t “criticize economic intimidation from one direction, but stay silent when it comes from another.” So what about Cuba?

Mexico is not silent on Cuba’s situation, sending 800 tons of humanitarian aid. What about Canada?

Or are we just going to wait until we are the ones being economically terrorized by the bully?

Don McLean Hamilton

The only politician speaking out about the grave injustices Cuba is being subjected to is Don Davies, the interim leader of the federal NDP. And be sure to listen to Anita Anand's feckless non-response to him:

Canada's reaction to Trump's attempt at genocide is callous at best and cowardly at worst, and stands in sharp contrast to Mexico's. 

While Canada has many things to be proud of, this surely is not one of them.