|
Contributor: paulc
Date: 2003-04-23 17:01:09
Principles? What principles?
Frank Harvey
National Post
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
Canadians should listen very carefully to the voices of Iraqi citizens who have been celebrating on the streets of Baghdad, Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul, and then re-evaluate the "principles" Prime Minister Jean Chrétien is defending.
Canada's "principled" position encompasses three core tenets: 1) no support for regime change; 2) support for interventions that are sanctioned exclusively by multilateral consensus in the United Nations Security Council; and 3) independent control over our own foreign policy.
The Chrétien Doctrine fails on all three counts.
A principled position against "regime change" in Iraq would continue to oppose that policy especially when it succeeds. But the Prime Minister now fully supports the U.S.-UK-led coalition, "wants the U.S. to win" the war, and supports replacing Saddam Hussein with a more democratic regime. This is a policy in favour of regime change, so what principle are we defending? The Prime Minister voted in favour of a unanimous motion in Parliament to "bring to justice Saddam Hussein and all other Iraqi officials responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity." How will Canada help to bring Iraqi leaders to justice for war crimes if the Canadian commander of the naval task group in the Gulf follows his orders from Ottawa to avoid capturing Iraqis fleeing the war? That policy, as U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci noted, is "incomprehensible." It is also unprincipled.
What about the principle underlying Chrétien's unwavering support for a UN process in which multilateral consensus guides Canadian foreign policy? Canadians should consider a few recent cases before taking a position on this one.
The UN Security Council failed to generate the multilateral consensus that would have saved close to one million lives in Rwanda in 1994. A policy that demands multilateral consensus for the sake of "legitimacy" implies that the United States, France, Canada and dozens of other countries were right to avoid military intervention in Rwanda to stop the genocide. Is this really a principle Canada should be defending?
The lack of multilateral consensus in the Balkans between 1990-95 resulted in 250,000 deaths, systematic rape and ethnic cleansing, one million refugees, and the massacre of 6,000 Muslims in the UN-controlled "safe haven" of Srebrenica. According to the Chrétien Doctrine, non-intervention was a "principled" policy because multilateral consensus to stop the war was missing. Is this really a principle Canada should be defending?
More recently, Secretary-General Kofi Annan was "deeply disturbed" by the 20 fresh mass graves found last week in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and demanded that "all concerned unconditionally respect the basic human rights of innocent civilians." But we know that the UN Security Council has not yet reached the multilateral consensus required to stop the killing. Reports by prominent human rights organizations estimate that approximately three million people have been killed in the DRC over the past four years.
Yet, according to the Chrétien Doctrine, non-intervention in the DRC is a principled position, because, like Rwanda, we have to wait for the automatic "legitimacy" that comes from multilateral consensus before we act. But a truly principled foreign policy would try to prevent these human rights atrocities from happening despite the absence of multilateral consensus.
The application of military power against Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo helped to stop and reverse the effects of ethnic cleansing, facilitated the return of hundreds of thousands of Kosovar refugees, and changed a regime in Serbia by sending Milosevic to the Hague for war crimes. All of this was supported by Canada and accomplished despite the absence of multilateral consensus in the UN Security Council and the threat of a Russian and Chinese veto. These are the principles our government should be defending today.
That leaves the third tenet of the Chrétien Doctrine -- independence. A commitment by Ottawa to rely exclusively on multilateral consensus does not establish independent control over our foreign policy. In fact it accomplishes the exact opposite -- subservience and subordination to any single member of the Security Council who decides to veto any consensus that does not support their own unilateral economic, political or military self interests. How exactly does any of this enhance Canada's capacity to act independently or in the interest of Canadians?
The refusal to acknowledge the deficiencies and dangers of contemporary multilateralism is morally suspect and decidedly unprincipled. The moral legitimacy of any policy, including military intervention, should be measured and defended in terms of its outcome. The process, whether unilateral or multilateral, should be irrelevant.
The sad truth is that Canadian foreign policy today lacks the very principles Iraqis are celebrating -- the Chrétien Doctrine would have prolonged their suffering, and, if followed, will prolong the suffering of many others.
Frank Harvey is a professor of political science and director of the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Dalhousie University.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: jamesm
Date: 2003-04-30 16:15:58
Honorable Bill Graham
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Government of Canada
Dear Minister,
I want to thank you for this opportunity to express my opinions regarding the future of Canada's foreign relations. As a political scientist, scholar, a former military officer, and a committed friend of Canada, I find these issues to be especially pertinent. Canada enjoys a unique position in relation to the world and its powerful friend and neighbor to the south.
Therefore, the future of Canada's role in the world demands careful consideration, especially within the context of its proud traditions in this
area. Your willingness to solicit this sort of input, by itself, signals an
important distinction between Canadian and American approaches in this area
that is indicative of the nature of Canada's polity and should benefit
Canada and the world, greatly.
Canada's commitment to liberal democratic values should be the most
important guiding principles of its foreign policy, even when pursuing such
a commitment does not appear to be in its short-term interests. Canada's
foreign policy can best reflect that priority by emphasizing diplomatic
solutions to conflicts, a willingness to intervene (militarily, if
necessary) in defense of clearly articulated and substantiate violations of
international law, including in the area of human rights, and a commitment
to using its status as a member of NATO, the G-7, and other international
associations to achieve these goals.
The "three pillars" approach to foreign policy objectives offer a good
conceptual framework, but Canada should not, necessarily, treat them as each
having equal weight in importance. Canada must not simply become, for
example, a junior partner of the United States in pursuing matters of
security and prosperity that are most relevant only to these two countries,
but it must use its values to persuade the United States and other powers to
promote stability and justice throughout the world.
Canada's participation in all of its international organizations should be
strengthened. First, that participation will reinforce Canada's commitment
to a multilateral international system. Second, Canada's relationship with
the United States will enable it to influence that superpower toward
accepting the same multilateral approach, rather than using international
organizations as mere instruments of its own will that are abused and
abandoned when those organizations fail to submit to its will. Third,
Canada's participation in more specialized, yet still global, sytems
(especially the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, and APEC) will allow Canada
to serve as a bridge between its fellow industrial democracies and the
developing world.
While Canada should maintain credible conventional military forces, its
emphasis should be different from its neighbor to the south. Intelligence
gathering and analysis has been an area that has needed special emphasis
(terrorism is a non-conventional threat that cannot be fought, ultimately,
by conventional means), but successful intelligence operations cannot be
done, effectively, without multilateral cooperation of the most profound and
sophisticated sort. Promoting matters such as environmental degradation and
human rights can reinforce that overall strategy of global cooperation in
security and persuade other countries of Canada's willingness to pursue
interests that are not just its own.
Contd...
Sincerely,
Dr. James T. McHugh
Professor of Political Science
Chair, Legal Studies Program
Roosevelt University
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jamesm
Date: 2003-04-30 16:16:44
Canada should remain flexible in the way it deploys its military forces.
Nonetheless, a prominent role in peace keeping also provides a specific
focus that would be most appropriate, given Canada's resources and values in
this area. It should cooperate with the United States but not try merely to
emulate that country's superpower priorities, which would be both redundant
and fiscally implausible.
Canada's multilateral cooperation will provide it with increased
opportunities to influence those global conditions that promote instability
in the developing world and the sort of resentment that is at the root of
much, though not all, terrorist movements. A commitment to its core
democratic and human rights values will make Canada more credible to these
parts of the world, in this respect. Furthermore, it will both contrast
with, and complement, the realist approach of the United States, providing
options for its allies, as well as for its own foreign policy approaches.
That goal will be especially important in continents such as Africa, where
Canada can, and should, take advantage of its leadership role within
organizations such as the Commonwealth of Nations and La Francophonie.
NAFTA provides a forum for promoting Canada's prosperity. It also will
offer an important, competetive counterbalance to the continuing expansion
and intergration of the European Community. However, in keeping with
Canada's values, it should use that forum to promote economic justice for
the entire continent, especially Mexico. Canada's success in helping this
developing country to transform itself, both economically and politically,
will reinforce its positive international image and its role as a leader for
multilateral global diplomacy and cooperation. Meanwhile, Canada should
negotiate to protect its cultural market, especially in Quebec, in order to
prevent NAFTA from becoming the basis for the advancement of a mere
homogeneous continental marketplace.
Canada should promote, effectively, those democractic values that the United
States purports to do, in theory, but which it often fails to achieve, in
practice. Canada must accept that it cannot always support American methods
and goals when they contradict those fundamental values that both countries
claim to cherish. Instead, Canada must insist upon the continuing relevance
of the United Nations and other international organizations and be willing
to volunteer its services in projects that seek to advance global
development, gender equality, international understanding, and peace.
The danger that the world could become divided between an industrial
"Christian" world and a developing "Moslem" would needs to be counteracted,
especially, through Canada's active efforts in support of these
organizations. Canadian leaders need to be as visible as possible in
presenting this image to the world, though in a constructive way that is not
perceived as being, indulgently, anti-American, for it must avoid making the
United States doubt Canada's ultimate friendship.
Canada must renew its commitment to promote and support academic programs
abroad that disseminate knowledge and appreciation of Canada. The
proliferation of Canadian Studies programs that was, once, so successful
must become a priority, once again. It is through the educational systems
of the international community that Canada's culture and experience will
gain the prominence it deserves and reinforce conventional Canadian
diplomatic and public relations activities.
Canada's position as a major, but not a "super," power must be the basis for
all of its international relations. Canada must demonstrate an appreciation
for the position and goals of the United States and continue to foster its
close friendship and alliance with Americans. However, it must not submit
itself to the unilateral tendency of recent American foreign policy, nor can
it allow itself to be guided by the allure of a realist approach that can be
highly successful in the short-term but which fails to address the sort of
long-term problems that result in global instability and, even, terrorism.
Canada's liberal democratic values represent the best features of the
industrial world, and it must be unshakeable in promoting them and reminding
its neighbor to the south never to abandon its own stated commitment to
human rights and the "better angels of its nature."
Thank you for this opportunity. I wish you and the government every success
in preparing Canada's foreign policy for the twenty-first century. I trust
that Canada's image as a strong, compassionate, and admirable participant in
international relations will continue as a result of this process.
Sincerely,
Dr. James T. McHugh
Professor of Political Science
Chair, Legal Studies Program
Roosevelt University
Reply to this message
|
|
