Conservatives Earning Support on Israel Issue

Under Tories, Canada a loyal ally to Jewish state

Canadians of many political inclinations often express concern at election time that foreign policy is not prominent enough at election time.

This election, it has taken turns at centre stage. But in many ridings, such as Ken Dryden's riding of York Centre, foreign policy -- particularly pertaining to Israel -- is rarely far from the forefront.

In Toronto-area riding York Centre, the Liberal vote has largely been about two groups: the Italian vote and the Jewish vote.

"The biggest change that's happened is that at one time, there were two very strong Liberal supporting communities in this riding, one was the Italian community and the other was the Jewish community," Dryden remarked. "The Italian community is still strong for the most part in supporting the Liberals and the Jewish community, many of them have shifted and are supporting the Conservatives."

As noted here previously, some of that shift can be attributed to dirty campaigning by the Conservatives. There's no reason whatsoever to write the Tories a free pass for it.

But some of that shift can be attributed to the fact that the Conservatives are earning that support by virtue of strong policy on Israel.

The fact that the Conservative Party policy on Israel -- namely, that Canada will support its allies instead of remaining silent when it matters -- appeals to the people who understand best precisely how important Israel is.

This isn't to say that the Liberal Party has, by any means, entirely derelicted the Israel issue. It was a Liberal Party government that outlawed Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations in Canada. That clearly counts.

But so does moral support when Israel acts to defend itself. This is something the Liberals proved far less willing to provide. For example, in 2006, after Israel had moved to protect itself from attacks by Hezbollah, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff accused Israel of "war crimes". He later apologized for the remark. Two years later.

By the same mark, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared Israel's response to be "a measured response". Which, regardless of the outrage of the far-left, it was.

In 2006, Israel was actually discharging its responsibilities under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which basically states that the sovereignty of states is dependent on the government acting to protect its citizens, and respect their human rights.

Simply put, if Israel had not acted to curtail Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli civilians, the international community would have been responsible to do it. Unfortuantely, the international community would have been unlikely to act discharge that responsibility.

With Dryden facing the most difficult election of his political career, he may be reaping the whirlwind of Ignatieff's failure to act as a strong ally of Israel. Conservative candidate Mark Adler may be reaping the benefits of Harper's support.

"When I go door to door in the Jewish area, people are totally aware of the Harper record on Israel and the previous Liberal administration's record on Israel," Adler said. "The Jewish community is aware of Michael Ignatieff's comments with respect to Israel, claiming that Israel has committed war crimes in Lebanon."

There is, by no means, any guarantee that the Israel issue will carry the riding in York-Centre, or anywhere else. But the Tory shift in support in the Jewish community has been hard-fought, and (mostly) well-earned.

The Interventionalism of Convenience?

Responsibility to Protect, Will to Intervene based on luxury of power

Dr Mutuma Ruteere has a bone to pick with Paul Collier.

Collier, a professor of economics and Director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University, has recently written a book entitled Wars, Guns & Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places.

In the book, Collier argues that the "bottom billion" of the world -- Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia -- are structurally insecure and unaccountable (no surprise to those who have paid attention to the sad state of that portion of the world). Collier argues that these countries are too large and diverse to be nation states and too small to provide security.

Collier continues by insisting that democracy has failed in the world's "bottom billion", and that the international responsibility must intervene in these countries and provide security in place of those governments. In extreme cases, Collier even argues that coup d'etats should be engineered against undemocratic governments.

Collier's ideas represent the ideas contained in the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine -- a UN foreign policy doctrine developed under the leadership of Lloyd Axworthy and Romeo Dallaire.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine assigns the responsibility to each of the world's states to protect their citizens from natural and human disasters. This responsibility encompasses the aftermath of natural disasters, as well as (even particularly) attacks on the citizenry of that state, be that by the forces of a foreign state, militant forces wtihin the state, or even the state itself.

According to the doctrine, the international community is responsible for preventing that protection in cases where states fail or refuse to provide it.

The relationship between R2P and Collier's ideas are evident.

The goal of R2P was to put a stop to crimes against humanity that are already in progress. Collier's ideas entail acting preemptively in order to supplant the institutional instabilities that eventually lead to these crimes.

No less a conservative magnate of conservative economic and foreign policy than William Easterly has denounced Collier's ideas as sheer colonialism -- and he may well be right.

The problem is that Collier's brand of colonialism may not be necessary.

Dr Ruteere notes that African states have often proven more willing to risk their own troops intervening in African matters than the developed world has. He notes that Nigeria intervened in Sierra Leone and Liberia, South Africa intervened in Lethoso, Tanzania intervened against Idi Amin in Uganda, and Dallaire's admission that Ghanaians and Tunisians were among his best and most reliable troops in Rwanda.

By contrast, Ruteere notes that the United States used its own institutional means to settle its last serious political conflict -- the turmoil surrounding George W Bush's reelection.

If the United States had proven unwilling to settle the matter without political violence -- institutionalized or otherwise -- it seems entirely fair to wonder if the international community would intervene.

It would seem entirely fair, but it really isn't. The developed world has a woeful record intervening against developed countries. During the 1930s Nazi Germany was allowed to overrun half of Europe before Britain, France, the United States and the ANZAC (Australia, New Zealand and Canada) states saw fit to stand up. The other great butcher of the developed world, Joseph Stalin, was actually an ally during the war. Earlier in the 1930s, Stalin's Soviet Union engineered a genocide via famine in the Ukraine.

The Responsibility to Protect clearly plays to privileges of power the developed world enjoys over the developed world. But even amidst the privilege of this power, many African countries -- who can't boast the sheere brute force of the military of nearly any NATO country, for example -- have demonstrated that they possess something that the developed world has proven that it all too often does not possess:

The Will to Intervene, even against neighbour states that are comparable to them in terms of military and economic power.

A foreign policy doctrine by this very name has recently been proposed in Canada -- once again with Romeo Dallaire at the lead. At the very core of this proposed doctrine are truths that forward-thinking African countries have seemingly understood for quite a while: that the disasters that unfold in African countries will eventually impact them, just as the developers of the W2I doctrine have recognized that they will eventually impact Canada.

If political collapse followed by civil war were to break out in a country like the United States, it's evident that the effects of that conflict, and of any crimes against humanity being perpetrated there under such conditions, would impact the developed world much more quickly than such a conflict in Africa.

Dr Mutuma Reveere seems to imply a very important question for the citizens of the developed world: can we find the will to intervene against our powerful neighbours if ever the need should arise.

The need has arisen before, and the will has proven lacking. If the need arises again, we cannot afford to have the wrong answer to such a question.

Serving Canada's Interest in Human Rights

W2I a realistic upgrade on R2P

When the Responsibility to Protect (also known as R2P) was released, it promised to revolutionize the foreign policy debate on human rights and the manner in which failed states would be handled by the international community.

The doctrine simply stated that countries have the responsibility to protect their citizenry and respect their human rights. If any state failed to live up to this responsibility, the stable and wealthy nations of the world had a responsibility to step in and protect their citizens, whether that protection was from the forces of another state, militant groups within the country or from the state itself.

In some cases the western world exercised its responsibility in these matters -- in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

In other cases -- such as Rwanda and the Sudan -- this responsibility was not exercised.

The Will to Intervene, a foreign policy strategy developed by retired diplomat Robert Fowler, former International Association of Genocide Scholars President Dr Frank Chalk, Senators Romeo Dallaire and Hugh Segal, and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, will hopefully fill in the missing blanks of R2P.

The report addresses numerous issues that tend to emerge around genocide and other crimes against humanity, including refugee camps (which they rightly note can help to spread various diseases, including potential pandemics).

"One of the most surprising discoveries we made ... is how vulnerable we are here in Canada to the indirect consequences of events like the Rwanda genocide," Dr Chalk noted. "These things will come back and invade the soft, quiet, safe, comfortable lives that we live in these parts of the world."

The report argues that "The chaos resulting from these atrocities poses credible danger to Canadian and American national interests at home and abroad."

"We need to redefine our national interest more broadly, not only to help failing states, but also to help and protect ourselves," the report adds. It notes that Canada should be prepared to use military force when necessary (and possible) in places where violence threatens the lives of civilians.

"If you're a leading middle power in the world and you have in the entrails of your ethos the belief of human rights and the belief in humanity and the moral strength to back up all those conventions you've signed, then you've also got to be prepared to not just throw cash at it afterwards, which usually ends up costing a lot more than preventing, but also sweat, tears and sometimes the blood of some of our youth," Dallaire insists.

"If we in fact move into a realm where we proactively intervene with the soft power elements of increasing our diplomatic capabilities, our international development capabilities, of going in and assisting to diffusing the frictions, that is peanuts compared to the billions (of dollars) ... of trying to pick up and sustain millions of people who are suffering."

Ed Broadbent elaborated on the depth of the human suffering that can be prevented if Canada acts sooner, as opposed to later.

"If the government of Canada had done the right thing when they had that information, perhaps the atrocious situation that confronted General Dallaire and the world community a year later could have been headed off," he noted.

The report recommends the establishment of a government ministry responsible for the global prevention of genocide -- clearly sharing responsibilities with the Ministers of National Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation -- to plan and coordinate early responses wherever crimes against humanity are taking place, as well as a Commons standing committee on preventing genocide.

The report also calls for Canada to act with its allies in preventing these atrocities.

"We should not be doing it alone," Dr Chalk announced. "But before we can co-operate with allies and a coalition of the willing, we have to improve our own domestic capacity to co-operate. That means we need more infantry, that means we need new doctrines for the Canadian military so that they're being trained to protect civilians and can interface with other armies doing the same if necessary."

Dr Chalk boldly notes that Canada may even have to circumvent the UN Security Council and plan missions without the Security Council's authorization.

Hugh Segal noted that part of Canada's strategy toward genocide requires taking decision-making power out of the hands of bureaucrats. Segal noted that they must be denied the "flexibility to avoid" the responsibility to act.

Fowler recounted the story of a foreign affairs bureaucrat writing "not in Canada's interest" on a memo his office had issued about the genocide in Rwanda.

"That is, as far as I'm concerned, a simply unacceptable reaction," Fowler fumed. “What we are talking about here is the moral imperative of engaging when truly appalling, unspeakable and unacceptable things are occurring.”

"It's about what I would call coalitions of the relevant ... acting when there is no other choice," added Segal.

As valuable a document as Responsibility to Protect was, it suffered from one fatal flaw: that many governments, including Canada's often fail to find the Will to Intervene.

W2I sends a powerful message to the world: Canada will intervene whereever possible, whenever possible, and by whatever means possible. If Canada's allies don't want to be embarrassed by inaction, they'd better prepared to muster the same will.

Five very wise men -- Robert Fowler, Dr Robert Chalk, Romeo Dallaire, Hugh Segal and Ed Broadbent -- have spoken. Now it's the responsibility of the government to do the right thing with the recommendations in this report: implement them.

Lookin' For Love For All the Wrong Reasons

There are better reasons than Barack Obama to support an anti-genocide doctrine

When George W Bush was still President of the United States, one of the favoured criticisms the Canadian left-wing lobbed at Prime Minister Stephen Harper was what eventually will become known as the "Steve" argument -- that he was "mini-Bush", too close to the President, and simply doing his bidding.

How that Barack Obama is in power, many on Canada's left are taking an altogether different stance toward the US President:

Impress him. Do his bidding.

"Under the Harper government, we really seem to have retreated from any form of an active role or presence on the world stage," says Ramesh Thakur, a co-author of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. "The problem was that this coincided with the Bush administration in Washington. Now that we have Obama who wishes to engage with multilateralism, I think it gives an opportunity for Canada."

"[The Harper government] wanted to be on friendly terms with our most important trading partner and our most important ally, which is understandable, but if that changes then the situation should change as well," Thakur explained.

Thakur's conclusion is that Canada should formally adopt the Responsibility to Protect doctrine as part of its foreign policy.

One hardly knows where to start with Thakur. For one thing, Canada has hardly retreated from any "active role or presence on the world stage". Before the Harper government came to power Canada was, and remains now, active in the international effort to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan.

But for another thing, there are many, many good reasons to support the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. Impressing Barack Obama isn't one of them.

Averting human rights abuses is one of the most important responsibilities of any developed nation. While those who believe that the sovereignty of any country is inherently sacrosanct may object to the idea of a military intervention, the far-too-numerous examples of genocide and other systematic and deliberate abuses has created a strong case for the recognition of that sovereignty in the international community: namely, that respect for it is conditional based on any particular government's conduct as a global citizen.

That is the best reason to support R2P. Not so we can have an international love-in with Barack Obama.

Thakur also argues that the Conservatives could subvert R2P and make it part of their foreign policy legacy.

"If they identify these with the Liberal party, it does not preclude them from identifying other areas that (could) become the legacy of the Tories," he suggests.

Once again, of all the good reasons to support R2P, this isn't one of them.

Thakur's suggestions are seemingly based in good intentions, but they draw faulty conclusions based on faulty premises. One of them clearly rests on the manner in which he seems to define an active global role.

Thakur seems to overlook that, even as an entrenched part of Canada's foreign policy, R2P would enable and justify intervention in places where he may not otherwise approve. Afghanistan, where Canada is playing an active role, is one of them. Another one of them, as Thakur himself alludes to, is actually Iraq.

"[Michael Ignatieff's] credibility on R2P was badly damaged by the way he supported the Iraq war," Thakur suggests.

Yet the litany of human rights abuses under Saddam Hussein has been widely known for decades. According to R2P -- which Ignatieff, along with Thakur, helped author -- Iraq very much could be argued to be a valid case for international intervention.

Thakur's clear -- and common -- dislike for the Iraq conflict hardly amounts to an undermining of Michael Ignatieff's credibility vis a vis R2P.

Thakur isn't wrong that the Responsibility to Protect doctrine should be part of Canada's foreign policy. It absolutely should be.

But in his efforts to come up with as many reasons as possible, he's come up with a few bad reasons amidst all the good reasons, that may in time serve to undermine R2P's value as a standard of international governance.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Rudy Rummel - "What to do About Nukes?"

Lloyd Axworthy Needs a New Globe Altogether

Former Foreign Affairs Minister espouses the evil of so-called "American Empire" -- but we can't have a global foreign policy without them

Lloyd Axworthy doesn't like the United States very much.

Need proof? Just read his February 16th op/ed article in the Globe and Mail. In it, Axworthy caricatures the Americans as imperialists, and suggests that Canada withdraw from Afghanistan in order to chase a dreamland foreign policy in some other corner of the world.

All this being said, the overall theme of his article actually stands true: this is the idea that a multi-polar world is emerging, and that Canadian foreign policy needs to begin considering the importance of emerging powers.

"The most important thing Canadians must do to respond to a changing world landscape is: Get a new map.

Our present international policy is guided by an outdated set of co-ordinates arising from a slavish adherence to the Bush administration's misguided efforts at empire building, military adventurism, continental border security and bilateral trade deals, while avoiding international collaboration on environmental and disarmament initiatives.

Ottawa has been so preoccupied with keeping in sync with these Washington missteps that we have lost sight of the global-sized tectonic changes that are altering power relationships. We have ignored the looming risks of nuclear proliferation and climate change, and abandoned the multilateral diplomacy that gave us a voice and influence on a wide range of significant issues."

Well, actually, no. We haven't.

In fact, this time last year Canada imposed economic sanctions on Iran in line with a UN Security Council resolution for defying UN resolutions that Iran discontinue its nuclear weapons program.

(While a recent report claimed there is no evidence that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons, it's based largely on spurious evidence, including telephone conversations between Iranian generals which could easily have been faked.)

And the very same "evil empire" that Axworthy denounces has been in the forefront of wrangling North Korea's nuclear weapons program to the ground -- even if they've relied a little too heavily on the so-called "soft power" that Axworthy himself espouses so freely.

Perhaps nuclear proliferation (which remains largely yesterday's issue) hasn't occupied the dominant position in global foreign policy thinking that Axworthy would like it to. But to claim it's been ignored is more than a little bit of a stretch.

"Americans are eagerly anticipating the departure of their hapless President by engaging in a broad democratic debate on future directions. Emerging powers in Asia, Africa and Latin America are challenging Western-based notions of political hegemony and economic market practices. Europe is soon to change its political structures to provide more concerted and coherent leadership. Russia is flexing new muscles in security and energy arenas. Global-minded civil societies are mobilizing around new efforts to reduce poverty and contain violence against civilians, and multinationals are forming new practices to better fit the demand for corporate responsibility. As the charismatic Barack Obama says "change is on a roll." Everywhere it seems, except in the corridors of power that sit astride the Rideau Canal."

Of course, in order to believe this, one would have to forget that a new (well, OK, maybe not so new) government is in power in Ottawa. A government that has found the courage and moral wherewithal to couple a solid commitment to a vital mission in Afghanistan with "soft power" initiatives that Liberal foreign policy -- under Axworthy or otherwise -- never would have dreamed of.

Things such as confronting China over human rights issues (Jean Chretien could scarcely be bothered to even speak those words to Chinese Premier Zemin Jiang) and confronting Iran over the treatment of Canadian citizens (in particular Zara Kazemi) within its borders.

That would represent change. Even if it didn't, whom but himself -- who served as Mister of Foreign Affairs between 1996 and 2000 -- and individuals like himself would Axworthy have to blame?

For Axworthy, the issue clearly isn't a lack of change -- merely change that he isn't personally comfortable with.

"Well, the starting point for Canadians is right now. The place is Parliament. And the issue that serves as the catalyst is Afghanistan. Successive governments have allowed themselves to be pushed into making this faraway, disputatious land the centre point of our foreign, defence and development policy, chewing up vast resources ($7.8-billion and counting), endangering our Armed Forces, and constricting our abilities to play a useful role on any number of other global files. And, for what purpose? To support a government that is corrupt, run by warlords harbouring the world's largest heroin trade, and increasingly hostile to a mission that is seen as an occupying force."

Of course, Axworthy may want to take into account the fact that democracy doesn't emerge overnight. Democratic institutions can't simply be transplanted into countries where they don't already exist -- they need time to work out the institutional kinks, so to speak.

Sadly, corruption can be part of the pact -- provided that we are willing to provide the kind of guidance necessary for the Afghan government to eliminate it.

As for heroin and opiates, Axworthy's former colleague Keith Martin has some very good ideas about how to tackle that issue. Too bad Axworthy would rather simply wave the white flag.

"Parliamentarians must use the debate on Afghanistan to liberate ourselves from a one-note, obsessive military combat role that is not working; to redefine our actions in the region in realistic ways that fit the security needs of the Afghan people, not the failed strategy of the generals."

Of course, Canadian troops in Afganistan -- who've witnessed first-hand all the progress being made there -- might disagree with him.

"Doing so would free up the precious resources we need to chart our new course.

And what might be some guideposts to place on that map? Let's begin by rejoining international efforts to rehabilitate UN peacekeeping efforts using the Responsibility to Protect principle endorsed by the world summit in 2005. This involves rewriting the rules of engagement for the protection of people, primarily by setting up international means of prevention to support fragile states before they fall into turmoil, equipping regional and UN peacekeepers with appropriate equipment to suffocate conflicts before they grow, and providing major aid quickly to post-conflict regions as recommended by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown just a few weeks ago."

Of course, Axworthy may be forgetting that the war in Afghanistan is actually well in line with the R2P doctrine. The Taliban's recent attacks on Afghan civilians have demonstrated the complete lack of concern they have for their own people, and certainly demonstrate the lengths (virtually none) they are willing to go to in order to protect them.

Then, there's the oppression suffered by most Afghans under the Taliban.

R2P practically demands we remain in Afghanistan. Axworthy helped write R2P, and he should know this as well as anyone.

"Charting a new course means becoming a major participant in the initiative recently launched by a distinguished group of former American secretaries of state and defence to reinvigorate the search for complete nuclear disarmament."

Of course, perhaps it's only fitting that a man who served as Foreign Affairs Minister under yesterday's man be apparently so concerned with yesterday's issue, even while he advocates the abandonment of today's dominant security issue.

"It means searching for effective global governance to meet the challenge on climate change. The place we should show leadership is in the forging of treaties to govern the protective use of Arctic waters and to support the rights of indigenous people in the region, jettisoning the present pitiful and dangerous flag-waving sovereignty approach being followed by circumpolar countries, including our own."

Of course, Canada's sitting government has done more to deal with climate change in two years than the preceding Liberals did in thirteen years, and that the Stephen Harper Conservatives have been better for Arctic Sovereignty (and the subsequent protection of arctic waterways) than any previous government -- even according to arch-leftist Michael Byers.

"It means shaking up the dormant debate on how to shrink the poverty gap. We will all be greatly embarrassed when the UN's Millennium Development Goals are soon shown to have been only partially met."

Entirely wrong, Lloyd. We were embarrassed when the UN's Millennium Development Goals were shown to have barely been partially met years ago -- largely due to the same discredited foreign aid policy practiced by Axworthy himself, and promoted so vigorously by Jeffrey Sachs.

"It means getting on board a new rights-based legal empowerment approach being developed by a UN commission.

Finally, it means revamping our own tools for delivering global policy, putting Parliament as the central forum through which Canadians can learn about what is going on in the world and what our options can be, giving CIDA the resources it needs and freeing it up from bureaucratic sclerosis, restoring the Department of Foreign Affairs to a central role in policy-making and making it the central hub of a Web-based interactive, information system for tuning into global public opinion and citizen-based public diplomacy."

Yet at some point Canadians might want Parliament to maybe take some time to deal with the nation's business, instead of merely acting as an outlet for Axworthy's failed foreign policy philosophy.

"And ultimately, and most obviously, a new map certainly requires new map-makers."

Of course, this is something that Axworthy is actually right about -- but ironically, he doesn't really seem to understand why.

As Michael Ignatieff alluded in a recent speech at the University of Alberta, China and India are quickly emerging as global superpowers, and Canada's foreign policy may not be entirely cognizant of this.

"Canada is now faced the wrong way," Ignatieff intoned. "We're faced south. We need to face west. We need to face east. We'll always have a close relationship with the United States."

Of course, he's right about this. Canada needs to focus on building its relationship with China and India -- but cannot afford to sacrifice its commitment to human rights (as it regards China) in order to do so.

"I'm not talking policy, I'm talking what's in our helmet here," he insisted. "Until we realize that we're in a multi-polar world, in which all the action isn't in Washington, London, Paris, New York, but Delhi, Beijing, I don't think we're going to get a truly global foreign policy."

But a lack of knowledge about China and India among Canada's general population may emerge as an issue.

"I know nothing about Indian culture, to be frank," he admitted. "I know nothing about Chinese civilization. We've got whole elites in Canada that have the wrong helmet on. It's not just a matter of boosting the percentage of our economic activity, it's not a matter of recognizing their software industry dwarfs ours, it's a matter of taking off the old helmet and putting on a new one."

"A global helmet," Ignatieff concludes. "A truly international one."

And therein lies the rub. If we move away from the United States, as Axworthy seems to so desire, we may certainly manage to produce the kind of foreign policy he imagines.

But for Axworthy to pretend we can wipe our immediate neighbour -- with whom we share the world's longest undefended border -- effectively off of our radar screens and somehow parlay that into a more global foreign policy is a logical fallacy.

While embracing the increasingly multi-polar nature of the world would certainly work wonders for Canadian foreign policy, Axworthy needs to remember that most people's global maps still include the United States.

Perhaps one of his ideological contemporaries could find it in themselves to remind him of that.

Or at least buy him a new atlas.

9/11: A Reflection on Past and Present

9/11 anniversary underscores importance of Afghanistan mission

Yesterday, foreign affairs minister Peter MacKay met with Afghanistan’s ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad.

The topic of their conversation was probably unsurprising: 9/11, and it’s continuing implications for the war in Afghanistan.

"Let's not forget that on 9/11, terrorism came to our shores on this continent," MacKay announced. "We have to be vigilant and very responsible in continuing to play a role [in Afghanistan]."

MacKay is absolutely correct to speak about responsibility in regards to Canada’s contributions to Afghanistan.

In 2005, Canada was joined by other nations in agreeing international organizations shared a collective duty to oppressed and endangered peoples – a Responsibility to Protect.

Chief among the creators of this doctrine is former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy. Although Axworthy’s support for the Afghanistan mission has always been luke warm at best (he supports the rebuilding of Afghanistan, but opposes fighting the Taliban), Axworthy has recognized that Afghanistan stands, along with Rwanda, East Timor, Darfur and countless other examples, as a historical failure of the international community to intervene in situations that demand intervention.

While it is clearly too late to prevent tragedies in Rwanda and East Timor, it isn’t too late to stem the tide of oppression in Afghanistan. Naturally, however, this is merely a foreign affairs bonus. The war in Afghanistan today remains what it always has been – an effort to stem the threat posed by terrorism.

"[Afghanistan] fell into the hands of international terrorists, drug dealers, warlords and al-Qaida," says Samad. "Do we want Afghanistan to revert and once again become a failed state and become a threat not only to its own people, but to the region and to the world at large?"

Certainly not. This 9/11 anniversary should serve as an opportunity to remember that 9/11 could have been prevented if we had moved on our responsibility to protect – to protect Afghans, protect our allies and protect ourselves – before it was too late.

Most important is this: if the leaders of the western world, including Canada, had sooner recognized the threat posed not only by terrorists (it’s only fair to keep in mind that the hunt for Osama Bin Laden began under Bill Clinton, no matter how many dishonest Republicans insist otherwise), but also by the countries that harbour them, 9/11 likely never would have happened.

Although it is also only fair to admit that the overall effect on history likely never would have changed. NATO would still be in Afghanistan in order to prevent terrorist plots from originating in that country (although a key component of the pretext for war in Iraq would have been absent).

Occasionally having to fight in our defence is the price we pay for enjoying the safety and privilege that our society affords us. Giving other societies (like Afghanistan) the opportunity to embrace them (or, admittedly, choose not to) is a responsibility we owe to the rest of the world.

As Canadians continue to debate the divisive Afghanistan question, and continue to define the Afghanistan mission, this is something that must not be forgotten.

Lebanon Conflict Presents Twin Conundrums for Canadian Leaders

There is no question that, for politicians, times of war and conflict tend to paint the most interesting portraits of them.

The current war in Lebanon has been no different for Canadian politicians. This conflict has proven to be a political conundrum in ways that few could ever expect. In fact, politicians representing both the governing Conservative party and the official opposition Liberal party have encountered twin conundrums in the form of the War in Lebanon.

Polls Present Harper With Another Lesson to Learn
For Prime Minister Stephen Harper, this crisis has been a huge lesson in many respects. He's learned valuable lessons on the topics of crisis response, image management, and playing the role of a middle power. Now, Harper needs to learn the most important lesson of all: the lesson regarding how to properly determine the will of the people.

As the leader of a party with a strong populist element (courtesy of the influence of the Reform party, of which he himself was a charter member), this was a strength of Harper the party leader, and is going to continue to be a necessary skill for Harper the Prime Minister.

As previously reported, Harper quickly came out in support of Israel. Traditionally, Canada has been a reluctant ally of Israel. While Harper was criticized by his political opponents, Lebanese supporters, and critics of Israel, he was rewarded by praise from Canada's Jewish community (including a rally of more than 1,000 people at a Vancouver Synagogue).

But a recent poll conducted by the Strategic Council, CTV and The Globe and Mail found that 45% of Candians disagreed with Harper's stand on Israel. This would seem like a healthy number for a minority government -- perhaps even for a majority government -- Prime Minister, but the same poll found that only 32% explicitly agreed with him.

In Quebec, a whopping 61% of respondents disagreed with Harper's support of Israel's actions.

77% prescribed a neutral role for Canada. Only 12% believed the government is maintaining a neutral position.

While Canada traditionally supports Israel, during times of crisis, Canada has traditionally maintained the role of the third-party "honest broker".

During the 1956 Suez Canal crises, then-Foreign Affairs Minister Lester Pearson made one of history's great political breakthroughs by advancing the idea of UN peacekeeping (this would net him the Nobel Peace Price in 1957). During the 1967 Six Day War, the Canadian government supported a UN resolution that called on Israel to remove its forces from the territories occupied during the course of the war. During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Canada failed to condemn the surprise attack on Israel, but pledged peacekeeping forces. Finally, during the 1975-1990 Lebanese civil war, the Canadian government was first to criticize Israel's invasions of Lebanon.
53% of respondants favored the creation of a UN peacekeeping force to enter the region. 57% supported Canadian troops being a part of such a force. This is a strong contrast to the opinion expressed by Deputy Prime Minster Peter McKay, when he insisted, " a ceasefire and a return to the status quo is a victory for Hezbollah."
While it is entirely questionable whether or not peace can ever occur so long as Hezbollah continues to exist, there is no question that Canadians favor peace in the Middle East. Abbortsford MP (representing the Conservative party) may have said it best recently. " There is no such thing as a dialogue for peace with people who are dedicated to violence and the destruction of a free and democratic nation," he said.

In the end, Harper's stand on Israel has done little to harm his party's popularity. While the Liberals made a three-point jump in the polls, the governing Conservatives also jumped a point. The Bloc Quebecois saw no change, while the NDP and the Green Party dropped three points, and a single point respectively.

But Harper's stance on Israel could prove to be costly down the road. Any minority government, by necessity, has to act on its populist urges. A minority government only becomes a majority government by serving the interests of the people.

Certainly, it is being shown that the Lebanon alone is not going to be the issue that denies the Conservative party the opportunity to form a majority government. But left untended, Harper's stance on Lebanon could cause serious problems for the party.

It seems they may have recognized this. Peter MacKay has lately begun advocating in favor of a conditional ceasefire. " There has to be a ceasefire," he said, " But certain conditions must be achieved to reach that stable, durable cessation of violence in the region."

MacKay has urged both sides to cease their attacks. He also called on Israel to show more restraint in their campaign, and upon Iran and Syria to stop supporting Hezbollah. " This has to be a lasting peace," he noted. " It cannot simply be a temporary solution to allow for the rearmament of a terrorist body, and simply begin the violence again."

This isn't so much a drastic shift in the stance Harper and MacKay have taken on the conflict, but it certainly does change the nature of the dialogue, from one that would allow Israel to confinue their conflict unabated by Canadian criticism to one that places the onus to pursue peace on both sides. It is not a neutral stance -- Canada is still supportive of Israel -- but it is a principled stand on the issue that condemns terrorism, but states respect for the value of peace.

That is certainly more in line with what polled Canadians have said they want. But there is still the matter of a percieved alignment with the foreign policy of the United States -- a move which would make a great many Canadians uncomfortable -- to be addressed.


Israel Acting on its Responsibility to Protect

Former minister of foreign affairs Lloyd Axworthy wasted little time in voicing his criticisms over Harper's "measured response" comments.

" I am increasingly concerned about the view that the only role that Canada should play is to adhesively stick itself to Bush administration policies and at the very time when in fact those policies are increasingly showing that they are not working," Axworthy asserted. " [Harper is] almost at the forefront of a very small group of nations who say whatever Israel does is right. We're becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution."

Yet one of Lloyd Axworthy's chief accomplishments as Minister of Foreign Affairs, the ICISS report The Responsibility to Protect (drafted on the topic of multilateral intervention during times of crisis) would actually disagree with him. The report states: "state sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself."
So, according to his Responsibility to Protect doctrine, Israel had a responsibility to protect its citizens from the dangers posed by Hezbollah's rocket attacks.

Had Israel not lived up to its responsibility, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine lays out a very different prescription: " Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the internation responsibility to protect."
While the report is clearly dealing with issues of internal strife, one of the foundations of the doctrine is found in Article 24 of the UN chareter, which outlines the responsibility of the UN Security Council to maintain international peace and security. Thus, the applicability to international crises, and the current situation remains intact.

Hezbollah is a force internal to Lebanon (yet allegedly independent of the nation's government), which has willingly placed Lebanese civilians in peril by launching their attacks from Lebanese soil, then hiding amongst the civilian population -- essentially using them as human shields.

Because the Lebanese government has demostrated itself unwilling (or perhaps, unable) to deal with what by necessity becomes a threat to its people, the responsibility falls to external forces -- optimally the international community, but in this case, Israel.

Israel's failure to take into account its responsibility to avoid civilian casualties aside, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine lays the matter out very simply: Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens. Lebanon has the same responsibility. Should both, or either of these states fail to live up to their responsibility, the onus falls on the international community to saddle up and ride to the rescue.

The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine has three base elements: the responsibility to prevent, the responsibility to react, and the responsibility to rebuild.

In this situation, the Lebanese government has clearly failed in its responsibility to prevent. There have been repeated calls by Israel, and by other members of the international community for Lebanon to deal with Hezbollah, which the Lebanese government failed to do. Israel's hands were tied in this regard, because for Israel to deal with Hezbollah, they would have had to enter Lebanese territory with little or no provokation.

The Israeli government did not, however, fail to live up to its responsibilty to react. The reaction to attacks carried out on your territory is to respond -- even if this necessitates entering the territory of another sovereign state in order to do so.

What has yet to be seen is if either country will live up to its responsibilty to rebuild, which requires both states to provide full assistance with efforts to recover, rebuild, and reconcilliate -- indeed, if the last of these is even possible.
Israel can potentially find its justification under the "Just Cause" article of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. This article states that, in order for military intervention (or response) to be warranted, there must be "serious and irreperable harm occuring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur, of the following kind: large scale loss of life -- actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act -- or large scale ethnic cleansing -- actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror, or rape.

When a terrorist organization starts launching rocket attacks on a country's territory, it can be expected that these attacks will result in deaths. But should the perpetrators of these attacks (in this case, Hezbollah) substitute a chemical weapon warhead for a less-effective explosive warhead (for example, mustard gas is remarkable easy to manufacture), "large scale loss of life" is a definite possibility. Under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, Israel, in this situation, is required to act in order to prevent such an attack from occurring.
In situations where states fail to live up to these responsibilities, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine grants primary authority to authorize multilateral intervention to the UN Security Council -- which has forever been notoriously deadlocked on any issue related to Israel. So, in other words, unless Israel can deal with this problem itself, Israel is, frankly, screwed.

Axworthy likened the situation in Lebanon to that in Iraq, saying, "The morass in Iraq is such a talisman for everything that is going on."

Anyone familiar with the 1991 Gulf War will remember that the UN withdrew the mandate to use force against Saddam Hussein quickly following his surrender, even while he was commencing an oppressive military campaign against the Kurds in northern Iraq. Had the Responsibility to Protect doctrine existed at the time, it certainly would have had to apply to the situation there.

On this note, it is said that hindsight is always 20/20. While this document obviously did no good at a time in which it did not exist, it cannot be used as support for preventative action that did not happen. But the Responsibility to Protect doctrine could be used to support actions long after the fact -- including the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was done at least partially to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and at least partially for the benefit of the oppressed Iraqi people.

Even Axworthy himself called Iraq one of the most "chillingly oppressed" countries he had ever visited.

At the end of the day, the matter becomes very simple: Canada cannot advance itself as the world's foremost advocate of universal human rights if it would allow the citizens of Israel, a state at least officially considered an ally, to have their most base human rights -- the right to life -- threatened by an external force acting with impunity.

In a way, this was ultimately the point of The Responsibility to Protect.
Axworthy certainly may take a stand on the war in Lebanon if he likes. But criticizing Israel for exercising its right -- and fulfilling its responsibility -- to protect its citizens jeopardizes the value of some of his best work -- and it was very important work indeed.