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

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

49 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 While the prime minister has softened — but not withdrawn — his support for the current military campaign that began in spite of progress on peace talks, he has not explained why he has long disagreed with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 -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 0 points 1 week 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.

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You didn't need to type that many words to say "I'm in capable of articulating a specific argument".

Again, you're speaking in broad generalities to make a point that doesn't exist when you actually look att the specifics.

Name an action he has taken and the part of his speech that it's violating. It's not complicated. If the article can do it cogently and isn't misrepresenting him and misconstruing the situation, it should be even easier for you.

[-] AGM@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

You aren't capable of responding with any substance to the many points already raised.

If you don’t want to be dismissed as a joke, show you have some substance behind your position by demonstrating an actual understanding of the doctrine and responding to what's already in the discussion.

I doubt you will, because you've already shown you haven't even done your homework on the topic. You'll keep rolling with vibes as your level of understanding.

Prove me wrong.

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You want to knock out the main one the article focuses on?

Well how about the fact that that it's literally entirely about a single specific weasle worded statement about Iran that was initiated that means nothing and was obviously done to not have Trump turn on us again?

Literally everything Lloyd Axworthy is railing against is the naiive idealism that is not reflective of the real world.

You know what happened with the Iraq war? Crétien publicly announced in parliament that we wouldn't be joining without first telling the US privately and it created a diplomatic rift and caused trade issues with them.

You know what Crétien's statement did for Iraqis? Nothing.

You know what actually mattered for them? Keeping Canadian troops and resources out of the war.

Now let's compare it to Carney's situation. He's dealing with an even more vitriolic and preexisting trade war, with a president and cabinet who have literally repeatedly talkedd about trying to take us over, either explicitly or as a vassal state, and his choice is to also not actually support the war with resources, and instead issue a weasle worded statement that kind of sounds like it's supporting the US while also calling them out for violating international order.

And because of that the sky is falling?? Like Jesus fucking Christ this is what I was fucking talking about when I said that this is exactly the naiive dumbassery that just says you should always call out evil in every situation no matter what because that will always lead to good outcomes. The man literally can't issue a meaningless diplomatic statement unless it's worded exactly as you want it, yet you think you're giving him space to cook?

[-] AGM@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

You're just confirming you don't understand the doctrine.

As a consequence, you don't understand the significance of the initial statement or subsequent ones and how they create incoherence in Canada's foreign policy.

Additionally, you also don't seem to be aware that on the day Chretien publicly spoke out against the Iraq war the government provided private assurance to the US of support, did provide indirect support with naval and air assets, and had a Canadian general serve in a command position in Iraq, or that Chretien had an acknowledged political strategy of cultivating an appearance of independence from the US to maintain public support that would enable him to be more useful to the US.

Who's naïve?

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You're just confirming you don't understand the doctrine.

As a consequence, you don't understand the significance of the initial statement or subsequent ones and how they create incoherence in Canada's foreign policy.

Criticize the actual specific point I made, or shut the fuck up.

[-] AGM@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

You're really holding yourself to a high standard, huh?

Show you actually understand the doctrine. You still haven't.

I mean, you've shown you also don't understand Canada's foreign policy history, but that's a bit tangential, even if it's par for the course so far with you.

Do better.