Carney Undermines Himself

I had such high hopes after Mr. Carney's speech at Davos. It articulated a realistic and pragmatic view of the world,  peopled as it is with both heroes and villains. However, as previously noted, his immediate, almost reflexive endorsement of Trump's illegal war on Iran is too much to swallow. 

Toronto Star letter-writers express their disapproval:

Canada once rejected America’s aggressive, unlawful foreign policy. Today, Mark Carney embraced it, Feb. 28

During his recent, celebrated speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Prime Minister Mark Carney acknowledged that “the story of the rules-based international order was partially false” because the rules tended to be upheld or ignored depending on which state was violating them. He also stated that Canada would aim to be “both principled and pragmatic. Principled in our commitment to fundamental values, sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter and respect for human rights.”

In hindsight, it would be generous to describe the prime minister’s statement as “partially false,” given Carney’s immediate show of support for U.S. President Donald Trump’s attacks on the territorial integrity of Venezuela and now Iran — attacks carried out in violation of both the United Nations Charter and, for that matter, United States law. Six weeks after Carney’s speech in Davos, it’s clear that the rules-based international order remains dead, while hypocrisy is alive and well.

Bart Hawkins Kreps, Bowmanville, Ont.

Lloyd Axworthy, the former minister of foreign affairs, is right to criticize Carney for his decision to back the U.S. and Israel’s bombing of Iran. By supporting “Operation Epic Fury,” as America is calling the campaign, Canada is only helping to further dismantle the international rules-based order that the prime minister invoked in his speech in Davos. Using military force against a sovereign state absent a clearly articulated justification or objective, and without having given diplomacy a fair chance or come to a collective decision with the UN Security Council, constitutes a clear abandonment of international laws and norms. At the World Economic Forum, Carney emphasized Canada’s commitments to the values of sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as to avoiding the use of military force except when consistent with the UN Charter. How are Canadians to believe his words now? The prime minister’s endorsement of this war is unnecessary and reckless.

Pamela Mulligan, Grimsby, Ont.

I commend Axworthy for his sternly reproachful op-ed, as well as Justin Ling for his piece published the same day. Carney seems blinkered by trade concerns. How else to account for his misguided, weak-kneed public statements about Trump’s war in Iran? As Axworthy and Ling both correctly assert, taking concrete actions to help free Iranians from their country’s oppressive regime is desirable, but it must be done within the bounds of international law.

Trump leaves me so incandescent with rage that I can’t bear to hear him without shouting at whatever screen he appears on. His haughty contemptuousness and delusional self-assurance would be comical if the stakes weren’t so high for the world. By rights, the president should be arrested, hauled off and convicted for his assorted crimes, and then put unceremoniously behind bars. Instead, serious people like Carney are compelled to hold their tongues and behave with deference. It’s all so farcical, yet it’s a farce without laughs.

Oliver Lenhardt, Toronto

I guess Carney has decided Canada needs to put its sign back up in the window: his recent statement on the U.S.-Israeli bombing of Iran marks a sad and cowardly retreat from the views he expressed in Davos. There, he argued that the world’s middle powers had to stick together in defence of certain fundamental principles, including “the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter.” We now see what all that amounts to when the rubber hits the road — and when 350,000 Iranian Canadians march up Yonge Street. Center-left voters have been cutting Carney a lot of slack on climate change and Indigenous rights, but I no longer trust his allegedly good intentions.

Jerry Ginsburg, Markham, Ont.

Trust lost is very difficult to regain. I predict tumultuous times ahead in Mr. Carney's relationship with Canadians.

"A Hit, A Very Palpable Hit"

Forgive me for frequently quoting from Hamlet, but Shakespeare's words seem most relevant today, thanks to Theo Moudakis:

In related news, Mr. Carney has not ruled out becoming involved in militarily with Trump's madness in Iran.

Prime Minister Mark Carney would not rule out military involvement in the spiralling Middle East war, stressing the possible need to defend Canadians and allies as the deadly conflict threatens to widen.

Carney also appeared Thursday to harden his stance when he declined to call for an immediate ceasefire, saying the stated war aims of the United States and Israel — to eliminate Iran’s capacity to build nuclear weapons and sponsor terrorism — had not been achieved.

“While we want to see a broader de-escalation of these hostilities,” including with the participation of other countries impacted by the violence, Carney said, “we recognize and stress that that cannot be achieved unless we’re in a position where Iran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon … and to export terrorism is ended.”

[Sigh] Davos seems so long ago, doesn't it? 

UPDATED: Bootlicking Followup

In my previous post, I excerpted criticisms of Mr. Carney's endorsement of the United States' embrace of international lawlessness. Sid Ryan, Lloyd Axworthy and Justin Ling offered their responses to this betrayal of Canadian values.

But as they say, talk is cheap. Pundits are readily available and voluble, very happy to share their insights into and analyses of important events. But what about how government members feel about violations like this? Clearly, party discipline and the desire for promotion keep most MPs silent and singing from the same choirbook. It is therefore most extraordinary when a member of the governing party dares to look critically at government policy. Yet that is exactly what has happened with rookie Liberal MP Will Greaves,

arguing Canada “cannot endorse the unilateral and illegal use of military force” while insisting its own sovereignty must be respected.

 In a weekend social media video that was “liked” by a handful of other Liberal MPs, rookie Victoria MP Will Greaves said Carney’s support for the strikes, which killed Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei and sparked an escalated Middle East conflict, “feels different” from the prime minister’s Davos declaration of a Canadian foreign policy rooted in “independence, consistency and principled pragmatism.”

“We can be clear-eyed about Iran’s human rights record and its abuses and the destructive role that it has played in the Middle East, and still insist on consistency, restraint and the protection of civilians, because that’s what credibility looks like in a fracturing world,” said Greaves, who was an associate professor of international relations at the University of Victoria before his election last spring.

“But Canada cannot endorse the unilateral and illegal use of military force, the killing of civilians or the kidnap and assassination of foreign heads of government while also insisting that our sovereignty, our rights and our independence must be respected.”

This refreshing and principled candour stands in sharp contrast to Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand, who

dodged questions about whether the U.S. and Israeli strikes were consistent with international law, following a condemnation from United Nations Secretary General António Guterres, who said the attack on Iran and its retaliatory actions “undermine international peace and security.”

Apparently, she was taking a cue from boss Mark Carney, who

cancelled a scheduled news conference in India on Monday, came out in support of the military operation Saturday, arguing Iran was “the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East, has one of the world’s worst human rights records, and must never be allowed to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.”

As I said in yesterday's post, this is quite a departure from both the tone and substance of his Davos speech, which has been rendered hollow and meaningless by his craven support for Amerika's and Israel's illegal actions. 

And Canadians are joining in the criticism:

Reaction time

Re “Carney picks a realpolitik side on Iran war” (March 2): I am so terribly disappointed with Mark Carney.

I voted for him because I believed he would be a person with principles, experience with important people in world affairs and firsthand knowledge of how to be honest and pragmatic.

I am now experiencing my first bad taste of Mr. Carney’s actions because of his support for Donald Trump’s action against Iran. I see no rational reason for bombing the country.

I am disgusted. I implore Mr. Carney to have the courage to reverse his statements on Iran giving support to Mr. Trump.

Jim Jeffs Parksville, B.C.

---

I can only guess that Mark Carney’s support for the attack on Iran is based on his desire to bring financial success to our country, understandable considering his background. I find it just plain wrong, for many reasons.

I will only cite one: Donald Trump did not go to U.S. Congress to ask for support for this war, nor did he seek the support of the United Nations. I believe the United States and Israel are beginning a major upset to Middle East stability, and even to safety and security in the world.

I had such high hopes for Mr. Carney when he became our Prime Minister.

Brian Skerrett Guelph/Eramosa, Ont.

---

While the Iranian people have suffered horrendously for decades, let us not delude ourselves, or them, that the “regime change” desired by Donald Trump will bring about meaningful democracy for the average Iranian.

It is clear to me that what he wants is a puppet government and further expansion of the American corporate empire.

Christopher Levenson Vancouver

---

I wish Mark Carney had thought to touch base with Jean Chrétien, who is known to be cautious in such matters, prior to cheering on the United States for another military attempt at regime change in the Middle East.

Glen Schaefer North Vancouver

I expect more servility to come. My elbows are done.

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.

No Chocolates and Flowers?

Mark Carney's latest visit to Washington yielded some fine bon mots.

“Pretty fancy entrance, eh?” Trump told Carney, after the prime minister drove up to the White House, with the driveway flanked by flag-carrying guards. 

“It’s amazing,” Carney replied, beaming. “I wore red for you,” the prime minister added, stroking his tie.

But it didn't stop there:

Sitting next to Trump, Carney once again praised him as a “transformative” president. He said he’d transformed the U.S. economy, got unprecedented commitments from NATO partners on defence spending, praised him for getting “peace” between Pakistan and India, and between Azerbaijan and Armenia, for “disabling Iran as a force of terror,” and for making the prospect of peace possible in the Middle East.

Maybe I'm just getting old, and the world has moved on, but I find Carney's latest visit, which saw both leaders lavish praise upon each other,  off-putting, to put it diplomatically. And given that the times spent ego-stroking yielded no tangible results, it is right that the Prime Minister's behaviour toward the fascist Trump was not well-received by many.

In the Commons, the opposition spent the day noting that the Liberals had campaigned on ‘elbows up’ but backed down on reciprocal tariffs, the digital services tax, and appeared to be willing to trade away dairy concessions, too. For all of Carney’s efforts to strike a deal, the Conservatives charged, all Canada has gotten in return are more tariffs.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford urged Carney to take a tougher stand. But the prime minister doesn’t have Ford’s luxury. He has repeatedly told Canadians he’d rather sign no deal than a bad deal.

“We can’t just keep rolling over to President Trump. As he strengthens his case, we seem to be weakening our case by continuously pulling off tariffs,” Ford said.

 Later, United Steelworkers’ national director Marty Warren said the lack of tangible progress on Tuesday was a “big letdown” for the sector struggling under 50 per cent import duties into the U.S.

“The last time Trump said what good friends we are, a week later he increased the steel tariffs,” Warren said. 

The union head added that the chummy atmosphere in the Oval Office also rubbed him the wrong way. “I know that’s a strategy, but as a Canadian, it disgusted me,” he said.  

Since nothing was resolved in the tariff war, Canadians are right to be disappointed in the lack of results from this 'charm offensive.' The only thing, perhaps, that might have turned the tide in Canada's favour was chocolates and flowers. Oh well, perhaps the next time Mr. Trump summons Mr. Carney to Washington, they will be included to bookend what will likely be another visit marked by obsequious deference to the 'leader' of the free world.