Carney’s ‘Defeatist’ Dismissal of International Law | The Tyee (thetyee.ca)

submitted 1 day ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s much criticized ambiguity about the role of international law regarding U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran is more than an excusable stumble by an inexperienced politician operating in a challenging environment.

Carney is building a foreign policy “doctrine” that increasingly warrants a closer look.

Last October, Carney lavished praise on U.S. President Donald Trump for supposedly “disabling Iran as a force of terror” with U.S. strikes months earlier. While the prime minister has softened — but not withdrawn — his support for the current military campaign that began in spite of progress on peace talks, he has not explained why he has long disagreed with intelligence assessments that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Nor has Carney or his ministers refused to rule out some form of participation in the conflict that is rapidly extending to other Persian Gulf states.

An opportunity to provide clarity on such issues was rebuffed when Carney skipped an emergency debate in Parliament on the growing crisis. Meanwhile, the war continues to unleash enormous human suffering and chaos.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca -4 points 12 hours ago

I agree that it's what he said in Davos, but this 'doctrine' is effectively just caving to the outlook of Trump, Putin, et al, which deems that economic and military might make right, and that we should measure human worth in GDP rather than the inherent value of one's humanity.

You did not understand his speech at all then.

The literal entire thesis of it was that we take the world as it is, not as we want it to be. The game isn't always set up to let you play nice and still achieve a good outcome.

[-] patatas@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Well, let's look at Carney's actions then.

He vocally supported the kidnapping of Maduro.

Then just days later he went and made some handshake investment deal with Qatar, a gulf dictatorship that used thousands of slaves to build its World Cup stadiums, and is the country holding onto the proceeds of Trump's sale of stolen Venezuelan oil.

Then Carney cheered the unprovoked US & Israeli attacks on Iran, walked back his support a little when he saw the public outrage, and is now trying to weasel-word his way into Canadian troops supporting the fascist US in a war of aggression.

Brookfield has billions of dollars invested in the gulf states like Qatar that Carney is suddenly calling our "partners", by the way

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca -1 points 8 hours ago

So Maduro was a good guy? Not a Dictator?

Qatar is bad, but Alberta is ok?

Canada would have been in Iran day 1 with Poilievre, if we weren't the 51st state already.

It's a turd sandwich or shit burrito situation, and it's also impossible to please everyone's moral center, because there is no right answer in the Gaza.

[-] patatas@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 hours ago

I count at least three false dichotomies in one comment, that's impressive!

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 hours ago

It's important to remember that Liberal leaders are just harm reduction as we avoid the blue faux-ristocracy. Ideally we would have an orange government or even a strong orange crutch holding up a minority red if we want some progress on things that matter to Canadians.

This guy is here to weather the economic attack from America by strengthening ties with Europe, and build up military and infrastructure so we can survive when America cuts of off from theirs in some fit of juvenile pique.

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca -1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Yes, all of those actions taken to strengthen Canada economically, and position us to be in a position of future economic power that will give us the ability to enact and shape fairer systems.

You're bitching and complaining about short term hedging his bets diplomatic moves. Naiively pursuing the most noble action at all time will not lead to a better world, it will lead to good people getting predictably out maneuvered by shitty ones.

[-] patatas@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 hours ago

What's interesting about this discussion is that all the "good" stuff Carney is supposedly aiming at is entirely hypothetical and rhetorical, and the bad stuff is very real.

40,000 jobs cut in the federal public sector by someone who promised to "cap, not cut" the public service.

Massive cuts to the CBC by someone who promised to increase their funding.

But we should keep trusting him?

I was told that Carney understood climate change and economics, and then he went and tripled down on the same fossil fuels that are causing the current global geopolitical and economic crisis. Oh, and greenwashing is legal again, which is the cherry on top of that shit sundae.

It's been over a year of cuts and deregulation benefitting massive corporations. How long are people prepared to cling to their religious-like faith in a man who has only ever been a friend to the Goldman Sachs/Brookfield class?

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca -3 points 9 hours ago

It's been over a year of cuts and deregulation benefitting massive corporations.

My fucking god. You expect him to snap his fingers, and have major nation building infrastructure projects complete and profitable within a year?

Short sighted bitching like this is why we can't have nice things. Get off the internet and go live your life.

[-] patatas@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 hours ago

No, I expect him to be doing the good things that his supporters keep claiming he will do, rather than doing the bad things he has been consistently doing. But thanks for attacking me personally rather than having any kind of honest discussion, I guess?

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca -2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Oh wow, now you're sad for feeling attacked, totally how fascists feel.

Maybe we shouldn't go around calling everyone we slightly disagree with a fascist?

[-] vogo13@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 hours ago

Buddy, people like you are the reason Canada is falling to fascism. Reap what you sow, keep significantly utilizing American services and appeasing American corporations, that goes for Brookfield as well, major conflict of interest. What products have made Canada unique and respected around the world? Oh right, nothing.

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca -2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Oh wow, another leftist who is so naiive and righteous that they can't even get along with people who agree with them but choose a slightly different path.

You're such a credit to the cause with your quickness to label everyone and everything a fascist! Your attitude totally isn't why left wing groups always fall apart to infighting.

[-] AGM@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 hours ago

"We take the world as it is" makes for powerful rhetoric, but is meaningless. There are many stories of how the world is, and all stories of how the world is are a matter of framing the facts. Allow someone to tell you their framing is the one truth, and you've submitted to uncritically accepting their theory of action.

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca -3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Allow someone to tell you their framing is the one truth, and you've submitted to uncritically accepting their theory of action.

Lmfao. No.

That's fundamentally not how framing / lenses / perspectives work.

You don't forget a lens or way of examining a situation, just because you learn a new one.

[-] AGM@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 hours ago

You're misinterpreting my point. It's not just allowing them to say it, but accepting it as the one truth. That's what "the world as it is" rhetoric accomplishes.

But I'll still ask, do you believe the Carney government is taking the world as it truly is, or is it telling one debatable story, among many viable stories of how the world is, for the purpose of shaping discourse towards political ends?

You can't have it both ways.

If it's just one story among many, then the "we take the world as it is" as the whole thesis of his speech is obviously problematic. You've got to get into the weeds of what "the world as it is" actually means to Carney and why it's being framed that way, because it is a choice to frame it one way rather than another and choices reflect perceptions and priorities. All of that becomes highly debatable.

If someone buys into his framing of "how the world is" in some essentialist way, then they may as well be in a cult.

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca -2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

The world as it is, means that it's more nuanced and subtle then just "do good = good outcome", which is what you insist.

If your world view is just "every time you don't go HAM calling out every injustice then you're a bastard man", then literally every politician ever, both past and future, will seem like a bastard man to you.

Carney's literal entire epoint with "the world as it is", is calling out naiive leftists who think that the road to heaven is paved only with good acts and the road to hell isn't paved with good intentions.

[-] AGM@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 hours ago

The world as it is, means that it's more nuanced and subtle then just "do good = good outcome"

That's it? That's your understanding of the "Carney Doctrine" as a foundation for Canada's foreign policy?

Wow...

That is pretty, pretty shallow.

Also, I'll point out that you're misinterpreting and misrepresenting my position again, which is not "do good = good outcome" lol

Carney's literal entire epoint with "the world as it is", is calling out naiive leftists who think that the road to heaven is paved only with good acts and the road to hell isn't paved with good intentions

I don't even feel the need to comment on this further if you believe that's the entire point. I'll just let it stand that you believe it. Nothing really needs added beyond that, other than maybe to point out the humour in you referring to others as "naïve" while adopting a position that isn't actually even getting into the details of foreign policy we see in practice because it's so devoted to faith in the rhetoric of his speech.

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca -2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Lmfao, you haven't made a single cogent point.

Go ahead and try to explain precisely how Carney is not living up to his Davos speech.

Just try. Be specific and don't boil things down to a black and white analogy. We'll wait.

[-] AGM@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

Lol. You haven't even shown that you understand the content of his speech. In fact, you've shown more that you don't understand the content of his speech. If you did, you would have picked up on the specific elements of his speech that I referenced for criticism earlier, such as the criteria for "Living in Truth" instead of retreating into transactionalism.

Other people in this discussion have called Carney out on these failures too, including on Venezuela, Cuba, Qatar, and Iran, but you've stooped to insults or dismissal in response to them. I mean, we're in a thread discussing a whole article about concerns on it, but you're just burying your head in the sand of a poor understanding of a speech you don't seem to have even read properly.

So, maybe you should first provide some actual substantial responses to the points already raised elsewhere in the conversation. If you're going to ask someone to put in the work to rehash a whole bunch of arguments already provided that you've chosen just to ignore or dismiss, maybe you should first do the work of demonstrating that you even understand the substance of the doctrine. So far, you haven't. You're just defending the branding while ignoring the reality people like Axworthy have pointed out in the article and others are pointing out in the discussion.