One of my favourite Canadian columnists is the Star's Walkom. Walkom writes today on the Mahar case and what it tells us about the US, Canada and the Candian government's approach to dealing with "security" concerns. And, frankly, it's a must read, for both Americans and Canadians:
Ottawa's decision to compensate Canadian Maher Arar for its role in his unlawful imprisonment and torture contains a warning and a lesson.The warning is that Canada and the U.S. are on fundamentally different paths when it comes to matters of terrorism and human rights. The lesson is that until Ottawa gets more aggressive with our friends in the war on terror, a Canadian passport won't mean much.
First the warning. The U.S. has chosen to subordinate the principles of individual freedom to what it sees as its security needs. It jails people indefinitely without charge, utilizes interrogation methods that the United Nations describes as torture, wages illegal wars and commits the very crimes against humanity it once helped to prosecute.
As someone who has been watching America closely for years this strikes me as an entirely accurate view.
But here's what this has done to weaker nations like Canada:
At first, the Canadian government tried to skate by this new troubling reality. It refused to give unqualified support to the U.S. war on Iraq, but participated eagerly in its invasion of Afghanistan.It passed draconian anti-terror laws but was loath to use them, preferring to hand over Canadian suspects (St. Catharines resident Mohamed Mansour Jabarah being the most notable example) to U.S. authorities to do with as they saw fit.
It didn't raise a peep when the U.S. imprisoned Canadian teenager Omar Khadr in its notorious Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
Finally, as Justice Dennis O'Connor's judicial inquiry concluded, while Canadian authorities didn't have any reason to arrest computer engineer Arar, they happily gave the U.S. information (much of it wrong) that helped convince the Americans to do just that.
The U.S. then promptly sent him to Syria to be tortured.
If it had not been for the chain of events that this unleashed, Canada might still be happily muddling along its inconsistent path.
But the Arar case made the contradictions of post-9/11 Canada-U.S. relations so clear that even Americanophile Stephen Harper has to acknowledge them.
"It has raised concerns," the Prime Minister said yesterday when asked at a news conference if, in light of the Arar matter, his government will be able to trust Washington...
... Ottawa, on the other hand, has concluded that what Canada and the U.S. did to Arar was unjustified – to such an extent that it's willing to compensate him at a cost of more than $10.5 million.
But if we are so far apart on this case, what does this say about Canada-U.S. co-operation in other areas of the so-called war on terror?
What does that say, for instance, about our role in the U.S.-inspired counter-insurgency efforts in Afghanistan? What does that say about our shameful silence on the matter of Khadr, who faces a Guantanamo tribunal so flawed that even American military lawyers have condemned it?
That's the warning.
The lesson is that in the post- 9/11 world Canada must better protect its own citizens – not from our enemies but from our friends.
What does Walkom mean by that? Well, how about other cases...
Canada is doing its usual tiptoeing over the fate of Chinese-born Canadian citizen Huseyin Celil, who was imprisoned while visiting in-laws in Uzbekistan last spring, deported to China and jailed.China's excuse is that Celil is a terrorist.
When Harper, to his credit, attempted to take a more aggressive line with Beijing, he was roundly pilloried by Canadian business interests for threatening their opportunities in China. So, he quieted down.
More recently, Ottawa has maintained the same kind of no-muss, no-fuss approach in the case of Bashir Makhtal, a Canadian citizen living and working in Somalia.
When the latest civil unrest erupted there last month, Makhtal took the Canadian government's advice and fled Somalia, only to be arrested by Kenyan authorities when he tried to enter that country.
He was jailed and deported – not to Canada, where he is a citizen, but to Somalia where he is not (Makhtal was born in Ethiopia). Indeed, his family fears that Makhtal, whose grandfather was once a secessionist rebel in Ethiopia, has been passed on to that country – where he is unlikely to receive tender treatment.
Our friends the Kenyans apparently think Makhtal was somehow connected to the deposed Islamic government in Somalia, which according to the U.S. government makes him terror-linked.
This, if true, would be interesting but beside the point. If Makhtal is a terrorist, he can be tried here – just as Arar could have been tried here had there been any reason to do so. (There was not.)
I'm going to put it more simply: the US, and governments like Kenya and China, are not respecting Canada's sovereignty. It is particularly pathetic when dealing with a government like that of Kenya's, but it is still reprehensible with respect to the US and China. When Walkom notes that the Canadian government shares information with the US, he's understating the case. US customs agents, for exmaple, have access not just to Canadian criminal records (perhaps understandable) but to Canadian citizens tax records (not acceptable, and none of their business.)
The words "terrorist", "terrorism" and "security" have become meaningless shibboleths used to justify all sorts of abhorent behavior. Label someone a "terrorist" whether there is evidence for it or not (and as Walkom notes, even if there is, that's not relevant) and apparently the requirement to respect human rights and other nation's sovereignty flies out the door.
Enough. If governments like the US want our troops in Afghanistan and our diplomatic cover, of which they get plenty, they should understand that they are required to respect our sovereignty. If they don't they can kiss our dying troops asses goodbye, as they come back to Canada. If we're overseas to fight, if our men and women are dying to help America, then it should in fact be for freedom and human rights - not so that America can kidnap our citizens and torture them or stick them in camps.
The same is true of China. I have long stood up for the Chinese government's right to sovereignty. But sovereignty is a two way street - you get what you give. If China wants us to respect their sovereignty, they must respect ours. Our business interests, like the business interests of every other major nation in the world, may be drooling to participate in the Chinese gold rush, but we have leverage - we are a surplus resource producer and China is not, and there is not enough surplus to go around. It is one thing for China to oppress its own citizens, I dissaprove, but it's their business - it is an entirely other thing for them to oppress ours. And we do have leverage. Moreover the argument from national sovereignty is one that the Chinese are sympathetic to. It should be made, quietly but forcefully, behind the scenes.
As for Kenya and Ethiopia - what? Why are we tiptoeing around these people?
At the end of the day, if sovereignty and human rights are subordinate to business interests - as they apparently are in both the American and Chinese cases, then what are they worth? Nothing.
And if the US is walking down another path - that of torture, prison camps and despotism, Canada is not required to walk that path with her; nor to pretend that China's despotic ways are acceptable.
If there is an economic cost to this, then perhaps it should be put directly to the Canadian people. "Are you willing to give basic civil rights up or lose 10% of your income? Should the Canadian government roll over for despotic governments; give them your information and not bother to agressively try and help you if they decide to lock you up?"
I have enough faith in my fellow Canadians to believe that if the choice were put in such stark terms to them, they would chose to keep their rights, repeal the draconic laws that have been passed and stop "security" cooperation with other nations who refuse to recognize human rights like, oh, a fair trial and the right not to be tortured.
And I have enough faith in the US to think that if Canada puts it in such stark terms, the US will at long last, have enough shame to look in a mirror.
But if I'm wrong about that, then so be it. Because I'm not willing to try and make a trade of freedom and rights for "security" or "prosperity".
That unwillingness is something I used to think was an American value as well as a Canadian one. But if Americans have abandoned it, someone should still hold it high.
I hope that someone will be Canada.
As usual, intriguing post, Ian. I see why Idealistic Pragmatist calls you her blogfather.
When Walkom notes that the Canadian government shares information with the US, he's understating the case. US customs agents, for example, have access not just to Canadian criminal records (perhaps understandable) but to Canadian citizens tax records (not acceptable, and none of their business.)
I would take issue with the above quote simply because it vastly understates the intel sharing that goes on between the US and Canada. I understand the conservative approach, not to overstate matters, but I don't think that there's any harm in stating that Canada is completely dependent on American and British intelligence, and that as part of the bargain, Canada provides them with intel from our country.
Additionally, I'd like to say that John Bellinger, State Dept Legal Advisor, blogged last week at Opinio Juris. In an unprecedented manner, a member of the admin actually responded to criticism from other lawyers, such as the venerable Lederman and Posner. Consequently, Bellinger addresses several issues you raise in the post above, such as "indefinite" detention. It's worth a read, even if one has no legal experience.
Thanks
I don't know. Some of that column sounds not only critical of the U.S. (totally valid), but also way too self-congratulatory for my taste. Let's not forget that there was a reason why Canadians had to resign, apologize, and compensate, here.
Canada did the wrong thing. Canada has admitted it did the wrong thing, apologized and paid compensation.
In the end the Canadian system is still working (barely) and what it is saying is "this is not acceptable".
But I agree that Walkom (and myself) are perhaps hoping that Canada will walk a different path than the US more than making an indisputable case that it is.
That's still up in the air. Fear and greed are making a strong case for giving up our freedoms and fear and greed are as strong in Canada as anywhere else int he world.
Very good post. Any disrespect accorded Canada's sovereignty is probably a function of our lack of international gravitas as much as anything else. Nobody is scared of Canada, not even Kenya.
As for Kenya and Ethiopia - what? Why are we tiptoeing around these people?
Simple answer: Ethiopia and Kenya are at the moment front-line allies of the U.S. as it projects its war on terror on to Somalia (and Eritrea into the bargain). Ethiopia has in fact been acting as a proxy army for the U.S. this past month, although that can't last long.
So yes, I think it is likely that Bashir Makhtal has become another Arar, and the Ethiopians have reason to expect powerful support if they resist Canadian demands to return Makhtal.
Canada doesn't weigh much in U.S. strategic considerations -- countries like Pakistan and Ethiopia do. It is a mistake to discount such countries -- Cheney and Bush certainly don't.
We weigh even less because the Americans know that influential groups in Canada could not care less about the civil liberties of individual Canadians and will usually press much harder for "harmonization" with anything U.S. administrations decide to do.
Like others here, I hope we are seeing signs that Canadian politicians are beginning to reconsider the implications of unquestioning co-operation with U.S. "security" concerns, now being used to justify all sorts of invasions of privacy and liberty. But as you say, Ian, that is just a hope.
Aye - but really, what's the US going to do if we tell Kenya and Ethiopia to go do something anatomically impossible with themselves? They have no direct leverage, and the US won't do anything that actually means anything in their favor. And if Ethiopia and Kenya don't realize that in a couple years the US will ditch them they're fools. (And we make clear that our anger is cross-party and will last more than couple years).
Ah well, all that you say is true. But it's stupid. Why we are tethering ourselves more and more securely to the Titanic as it starts to take on water is beyond me.
Please write a post on "What Price Freedom?" with regards to the environment. Canadians suffer by and large from affluenza and will buck any government efforts to create penalties for their life 'High on the Hog". A poll at my local Osprey newspaper site has 65+% of participants saying Arar's compensation is too high. At the poll that counts, we elected a Conservatve, of course.
Thanks for an excellent post! Not to stray too far off topic, I hope, but we Canucks need to realize our intelligence services (both humint i.e. CSIS and signals i.e. CSE) were NAFTA'd long ago under agreements like the UKUSA Community. Programs like ECHELON mean Big Brother's got Big Ears! Fortunately the very good 'Lux Ex Umbra' ('Light From the Shadow') weblog keeps an eye on the spymasters...