By Dave Pizer
Canada has been a military lightweight on the international stage for many years, but the Liberal government’s diplomatic stance, or lack thereof, in addressing the crisis in Iraq has shown the degree to which it has also become a moral irrelevance.
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham have constantly asserted that Canada supports the United Nations weapons inspection process and isn’t prepared to make any decision about supporting a war with Iraq until the UN Security Council authorizes such action.
While this position is more rational than that of the countries which have joined the United States in calling for military action before the UN weapons inspectors have even finished their work, it hardly seems worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.
France, Germany and Russia have taken a different position. They propose the UN increase the number of inspectors three-fold, and send UN peacekeepers into Iraq to ensure the inspectors aren’t thwarted in their efforts; in a sense, to make the inspections work and avoid war.
NDP leader Jack Layton says he’s inspired by the ideas coming from Europe, and wonders why Canada hasn’t managed to come up with some constructive ideas of its own.
“A Canada of old, a Canada known for an independent voice around the world for peace would have been coming up with such ideas,” he says. “But now we’re playing such a second fiddle you can’t even find us in the orchestra when it comes to the George Bush band.”
Layton says Canadians want to hear more from their government about where it stands. He adds Canada’s foreign policy should not be dictated by a fear of offending the Americans.
“I don’t think we have to march off to war with our neighbour in order to have a robust trade relationship,” he says. “In fact, I think we’ve been too soft, and you don’t get respect that way; you get pushed around.”
The only scenario that would absolve the Chrétien government from ever having to take a moral position would be if chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix’s final report was so negative that the Security Council — of which Canada is not a member — authorizes the use of force. Canada wouldn’t have to make the decision to support the U.S. if it chose to act outside the auspices of the UN, or take a defiant stand for peace.
Former Canadian UN ambassador for disarmament Peggy Mason says this scenario is unlikely.
France and Russia, both permanent members of the Security Council with the ability to veto a motion, contend that non-cooperation on the part of Iraq is not a justification for war, but only the threat of imminent danger. International law and the UN Charter are consistent with their position.
Mason, who served as ambassador from 1989 to 1994, says the Chrétien government has already made its decision to support the U.S., despite its claims to the contrary.
“It is clear and very disturbing that although Bill Graham is saying we’ve got to wait for Hans Blix, he’s more or less prejudging what Blix is going to come up with by saying the American position is so strong and time is running out,”says Mason.
By any objective measure the inspectors have just begun their work, according to Mason.
“Blix said there were problems, but he said give us time to do our work. If Canada is really supporting the inspectors then time is not running out until Hans Blix tells us, look, there’s nothing more we can do.”
Time is running out, not because Iraq represents an imminent danger, especially with UN weapons inspectors continuing to search the country, but because the Americans want their war before the unbearable heat of the Iraqi summer arrives and before the contracts of their 60,000 reservists who’ve been called for duty, expire.
Liberal MP John Harvard, a member of the Commons foreign affairs committee, says he is not very optimistic that war can be averted, especially with the Americans determined.
“We’re at three minutes to midnight,” says Harvard.
He says Canada is bound by the UN process because it is the best tool the international community has to deal with such problems, but that doesn’t mean Canada has to be “jumping for joy” about a decision by the UN. If the Security Council decides war is the only option, Canada is compelled to go along.
Harvard adds, however, “the Americans, through sheer arm twisting, will convince the other (council) members to go along.”
He says Turkey was offered $15 billion by the U.S. for agreeing to allow their forces to set up base in the Eastern European country — an offer the Turks couldn’t refuse because their economy is in terrible shape.
Perhaps Turkey is not in a position to say anything, but what is Canada’s excuse?
If the decision about whether to go to war is being made through arm twisting and bribes, then it is Canada’s moral responsibility to offer something much more substantial than saying “we support the UN process.”
Being neither a supporter of war, nor an inspiring voice for peace, Canada’s silence could lead to irrelevance as it bides its time in a moral no man’s land.