This was NDP leader Tom Mulcair yesterday on the Harper government's decision to cut off diplomatic relations with Iran:
...it's ... becoming increasingly clear that there were serious concerns, we don't have the same information but it would appear that there might be some very solid information that would have led the government to that decision, so until we have that information it's hard to comment further.
Seriously? That's all you've got? The implication in that is that Mulcair doesn't support the decision based on what we do know. So why not say that and put the onus back on the government to justify it? The government's abrupt action appears needlessly provocative when tensions are already high. And cutting off diplomatic relations makes any attempt to negotiate with Iran or to represent the interests of Canadians to Iran that much more difficult.
Or was Mulcair being mealy-mouthed because he actually supports the government's position but knew he was cutting his own foreign policy critic off at the knees and was trying to have it both ways? He sounds like an opposition leader who's afraid to oppose. I was hoping we were past that. And I was really hoping to see a national political party with something that resembled a rational foreign policy.
From what I understand about the NDP Caucus, this sounds like there is not a unanimous position within Caucus. It may well come about, but from what I've heard, they go through a process Jack set up to come to agreement on issues. I like that.
But that the Party doesn't have policy around this is what bothers me.
The NDP position of foreign affairs has been dismal for the past decade if not longer. Except for the illegal invasion of Iraq and some rebuke on the debacle in Afghanistan, they have been either quiet in their criticism or supportive of the governing party on such issues as hyper anti-terrorist laws, security certificates, Guantanamo, Omar Khadr, the US overthrow of Aristide in Haiti, the US attempt to destabilize Venezuela, Israeli bombing of Lebanon, the Gaza open-air prison, the boycott of the UN Anti-racism follow-up conference (dubbed Durban II), the NATO bombing of Libya, calls for intervention in Syria and now provocation of Iran.
The Liberals are just as bad. The only thing that differentiates these opposition parties and the Harper Regime is more subtle language and a more flexible time table, allowing for the dim possibility of more peaceful conflict resolution.
Oh, NO! Mulcair's a LIBERAL! No. Wait. Even worse. He's a POLITICIAN!
"Mealy-mouthed". I like that, Pogge. Descriptive of a class.
One thing I've liked about Mulcair is that he's been willing to stick to his positions under fire. It's been refreshing. This was a disappointment.
First, let me self-identify as a bitter, cynical, and twisted old man. I understand that this syndrome is quite common among starry-eyed romantic idealists - particularly those with a leftist bent. Old hippies.
But the closest I have ever come to being proud in my Prime Minister was when Chretien told the U.S. that, when it came to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Canada was unwilling to join the coalition of the willing.
Maybe the reason for his decision was less than principled. I invite perspectives on this.
I guess I'm not ENTIRELY bitter, cynical and twisted. Yet. But I'm still looking for a politician to stand on principle. I had hopes for Mulcair. I share pogge's disappointment that he seems to be falling short.
We don't have an abundance of alternatives.
Mulcair isn't failing to push his position under (potential) fire, at least fire from the media or the right. Mulcair is strongly pro-Israel. He has some domestic positions which are positive and may well have some other international positions which are positive, but on Israel my understanding is that he's an apologist for that regime who backs its positions uncritically. So to the extent that he's modifying his stance, what he's doing is not just coming out and saying "Go to it Harpo! Kick those Iranians in the shins!" because he's after all the leader of the opposition and because he knows that both within caucus and among NDP voters most are less supportive of Israel than he is.
So yeah. It's not that he's gutless, it's that on this issue he's on the wrong side.
Pogge & all,
Whatever his motivations, you should be glad Thomas Mulcair is attempting to end the ridiculous "debate" on this issue...as there is no remote possibility of actual debate.
The government can merely claim "national security concerns" and wet the pants of our effete population.
You think that the decision on Iran was wrong...morally, politically, practically? It doesn't matter.
Jason Kenney just winked at CBC host Evan Solomon. Reporter Jennifer Ditchburn now believes a top-secret justification is waiting to be unearthed. An anonymous source named "CurveBall" will provide the unverifiable hearsay necessary to justify all actions & concerns. Polling will confirm popular support for the governments action.
There's your rational policy "debate".
In true super-power nations like the United States & China - such idiocy would need to be confronted. They have the actual capacity to destroy & occupy foreign lands with relative impunity.
But Canada is not a super-power and it barely has the capacity to threaten Greenland. The Iranians rank us just above Lithuania in international significance.
In Canada, all this amounts to is domestic diversion. Diversion from the Conservatives humiliating electoral defeats in vote-rich Ontario. Diversion from high unemployment & economic mismanagement. Diversion from the rising popularity of social-democrats across Canada.
However it comes about, this diversion needs to end.
Hmmm . . . I don't often agree with Dan Tan, but he has a point. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an element of "Look over there! An enemy! Pay no attention to that domestic record behind the curtain!" going on here.
I don't fully agree with the assessment of Canada's military power--bit of hyperbole there. It's very common to claim that because Canada is neither the US nor China, that means we have zero military power. In reality Canada has a typical amount of military power for a mid-sized, more-or-less-first-world, country. Which is to say, less than England, but somewhere more or less on a par with a Scandinavian country or Italy or something, and more than an African country especially in terms of air power. But that's a minor nitpick, I just get annoyed the way people blithely repeat this; it was an amusing piece of Canadian self-deprecation the first few times but when people start to believe it they start agitating for huge defence budgets.
PLG,
In this context, you are wrong. Canada is every bit the non-actor I originally described it as.
Unless you intend to rain fire on the entire population, only a sustained ground occupation can hamper Iran's nuclear program. It has been cleverly designed to elude & endure a targeted air campaign.
Only the United States has the forces necessary to carry out such a project. However, General Dempsey & President Obama have explicitly rejected such an option. The American public are behind them on this.
That is why Bibi Netanyahu & his sycophant Stephen Harper are constantly blustering & whining. They are making a play for AMERICAN public opinion, having come to terms with their own impotence long ago.
Best,
Dan Tan
Mr. Tan, your rebuttal has nothing to do with either your original claim about the nature of Canada's military power ("barely has the power to threaten Greenland") or my post in reply.
As usual, the comments span a wide range of issues. I would like to address some of them.
On Mulcair and the NDP - I agree that Mulcair is out of step with his party. Mulcair has drunk the kool aid on the position that support of Netanyahu and his policies and support of Israel are equivalent. He supports Israel so he supports Netanyahu. Netanyahu insists that an attack on Iran is essential so Mulcair supports an attack on Iran.
The rest of the party does not see the equivalence, so does not support war with Iran. In some parties this would not be a problem. In the harper party, for example, this is not a problem. The bots fall into line with ANY harper policy, no matter how counter factual.
The resolution? Hopefully the NDP party will help the leader understand that his position is not in the long term interests of Israel or Canada or the NDP.
On our military capacity - we can carry the water, we cannot actually fight on our own. In the Libya campaign we lent them 7 fighters. Those fighters flew so many missions that continued use of those planes is compromised. We have run down our air force. Could we assist with 7 fighter jets again in Iran? In a stretch.
We would have to use US bases. There are over 40 US bases on the borders of Iran. There are no Canadian bases. Our capacity and participation are important only in a public relations role. [That does not mean harper would not have a fly past after the war to celebrate that participation.]
The problem is, Iran would not buckle the way Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya did. It would actively resist fighter jets - there would be losses.
Why does the US continue to wage war on these poor countries which are no threat to it? This is a particularly difficult question to answer when faced with the facts. In particular, the fact that they have not actually won a war for 50 years. The only successful actions they have taken were through hiring of mercenaries within a country to wage civil way in that country. Nicaragua comes to mind. They have not yet even defeated Cuba - a standoff. Yet they refuse to admit defeat even there.
Given the long series of apparent failures, why does the US continue to wage war? It depends on what you want from a win, it would appear. It used to be - WW1, WW2 - that a win meant an evil or corrupt regime was ousted, to be replaced by normal people who chose to move the country on a path to westernization. The losers adopted the winners goals and values.
A win now appears to be simply reducing the country to a state of development which renders it incapable on independent action. What is happening in the middle east is the systematic reduction of countries to rubble. That is the new win. Iraq, Afghanistan - rubble. Libya while not a direct war, is a win because the west was able to start a civil way. The net is the same. Libya has been set back generations and now has powerful rebel groups that will continue a low grade civil war for decades. Syria is tearing itself apart - a freebie. Lebanon is on the brink of following Syria.
Iran remains fairly strong and unified. Bombing it back into the stone age would leave only Saudi Arabia as a military threat of any consequence in the area. (Aside - while surfing for military numbers for this reply I found that Jordan is an exemplary international citizen. Jordan has a bigger military than Canada - soldiers, air force - for about 5% of the cost. It spends 1 billion, we spend 19 billion. It has 60,000 soldiers working in peace keeping around the world. Perhaps harper and baird should start looking to Jordan for inspiration rather than Israel.)
For now, Saudi Arabia is compliant. It is also of course the breeding ground for salafism. The combination of salafism and military power will not end well.
Having wandered well away from the original question and reached a low point of optimism for the future, I apologize for the length of this reply and wish you a good morning. I am off to climb a small hill.
Brent,
You are poorly informed about Mulcair's views on Iran & Israel.
There is no need for "the NDP party [to] help the leader understand that his position is not in the long term interests of Israel or Canada or the NDP".
Mulcair is already there:
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.ca/2012/04/guest-post-mulcair-vs-chickenhawks.html
The article highlights Mulcair's actual views on Iran. I would also point you to the second paragraph, which provides a link to Mulcair's actual policy statement on Israel.
Best,
Dan Tan
Dan
Thanks for the well written column - your information and research update the information I had - mostly collected during the leadership race I confess.
Having read and listened to the links in your column with interest, I am more inclined to accept that Mulcair is balanced on this issue. He did a nice interview on AIH - although how anyone can talk that fast baffles me. A bit like a player piano set at the wrong speed.
Some prior actions still disturb me, but I will pay attention to future actions.
Brent
Brent,
Your lingering false impression of Mulcair is a testament to Brian Topp's skill as a campaigner.
He provided NDP voters with just the right amount of innuendo, allowing their imaginations to complete some dark thoughts.
It is in Canada's interest that the two come to an accommodation. I would love to see Topp play with the Conservatives in this manner.
Some Old Guy: "the closest I have ever come to being proud in my Prime Minister was when Chretien told the U.S. that, when it came to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Canada was unwilling to join the coalition of the willing."
Of course that wasn't what Chretien's minions were saying in private: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/15/weston-iraq-invasion-wikileaks.html
And in fact Canada did help the U.S. in Iraq:
* maintained an illegal naval blockade against Iraq
* kept 'exchange' troops 'embedded' in the U.S. military
* helped the U.S. plan and carry out the invasion with high-level officers
* allowed munitions and other military goods to be sold to the U.S. military to be used in Iraq
And the biggest aid of all:
* expanded Canada's military occupation of Afghanistan, freeing U.S. troops to occupy Iraq.
Canadians should stop romanticizing what a nice country this is.
It isn't, and it's getting nastier.