Posted on 04/16/2003 9:45:53 AM PDT by knighthawk
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.
This is a good thing. ;^)
This is a good thing. I know how conservative Canadians are suffering, after our recent, unfortunate Clinton experience.
And I'd say morally and intellectually corrupt and bankrupt.
A neat little, steaming package.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.