Will Carney join Trump’s war on Iran?
Canadian Forces planning for Middle East mission
For a moment there, it looked like Mark Carney would be the torchbearer for countries opposed to Trump’s big power politics. Now, not so much.
In fact, it seems Prime Minister Carney is ready to embrace the “end of the international rules-based order” rather than oppose it – thanks to the confusing and contradictory statements by the Canadian government following the U.S.’s and Israel’s attacks on Iran last Saturday.
As the first American and Israeli bombs fell on Iran, the Prime Minister’s office rushed out a statement endorsing Trump’s attack: “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”
Plenty of people expressed dismay over Carney’s full-throated backing of unprovoked attacks without United Nation’s approval, the kind of power-flexing that Carney derided in his famous speech at Davos, Switzerland.
Former Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy responded incredulously; “We are embracing the very doctrine we used to reject.”
Watch Lloyd Axworthy’s response on CBC TV
Comparing our policy on Ukraine, he said, “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.”
Using the pages of the Toronto Star, Axworthy wrote, “Parliament should urgently debate Canada’s position: the legal basis, the implications for our Ukraine policy, our obligations to the Iranian people and how to build an independent security strategy.
Axworthy similarly opposed Carney’s decision to join Trump’s Golden Dome missile defence scheme, establishing the former Chretien-era Minister as the voice of Liberal conscience.
The restive Liberal caucus
Carney’s own MPs are asking questions, too, and demanded a briefing with officials on Friday.
Victoria’s Will Greaves MP said, “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 fights and our independence must be protected,” in a video he posted to social media.
Absurdly contradictory. Embarrassing.
Prime Minister Carney tried to tamp down the controversy by walking back some of his earlier comments, qualifying his support for Trump’s attacks is “not a blank cheque.” But his position became even more muddled when he refused to rule out contributing Canadian troops.
“Absurdly contradictory,” said one Globe and Mail commentator. “Embarrassing” said another.
Canada won’t be able to remain on the sidelines for long
NATO forces intercepted an Iranian missile headed for Turkey, inching the military alliance deeper into the conflict. UK fighter jets are running defensive operations from Qatar and Cyprus to shoot down any incoming drones and missiles.
“We are not talking about participating (in the U.S.’s) Epic Fury, per se,” said Canada’s top General. “This is not a mission that we are considering. However, our Gulf partners may require defence and support, so, within that context, these would be the types of military options that we could consider.”
Watch for Canadian troops being dispatched to the Middle East in the days to come.
If you found this interesting or informative, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)
Most readers say F-35 media coverage one-sided
Last week PeaceQuest featured new research by The Maple that studied 55 articles from CBC News, The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and National Post. It found that champions of the F-35 fighter jet deal between Canada and the United States were quoted 41% more often than critics.
I asked you and other readers if the media covers multiple viewpoints fairly on military issues like the F-35 fighters. One-in-four said, “No” (24%) and disagreed that media coverage is fair, with even more disagreeing strongly (61%).
NATOs activities have been questionable for some time. Only now it becomes evident what we are sacrificing ( we being everyone with a portfolio) for primary access to unleashed capitalism. Can you tell what your mutual funds represent?
If NATO countries are attacked during the debacle, it will be very difficult for Carny to keep Canadian troops out of this conflict. Hopefully any such military involvement would be only for peacekeeping or protecting NATO countries. However, Canada should definitely not get involved with the USA and Israel in offensive attacks on Iran.