Wither Canada? Breaking ties with Iran...
Sep. 10th, 2012 06:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pheloniusfriarI've seen some pretty amazingly boneheaded things in my day by Western governments, and Canada in particular, but this has to be one of the most dangerously stupid and wrongheaded things I've ever been witness to. As the general consensus seems to indicate, unless Canada has been notified of an impending attack on Iran or credible and specific threats have been made against our consular staff in Iran, to break off dialogue with a nation in such deep crisis as Iran is cowardice and recklessness at its most extreme. Canada continues to destroy its repulation as a voice of reason on the international scene, and this counts as yet another unforgivable decision by the Harper government in its race to be subservient to any foreign power that promises to dominate them (the way they are unconditionally sucking up to China is similarly humiliating). Oh, and how Harper met with Putin and "agreed to disagree" about Syria (while in almost the same breath condeming Iran for its role in Syria). Sickening.
I like what one person wrote particularly well: "Although his swearing-in at Rideau Hall must have happened in the dead of night, Canada appears to have a new foreign minister. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu. His day job may be prime minister of Israel, but Canada’s abrupt actions against Iran seem to confirm that the Harper government’s outsourcing of Canada’s Middle East policy to Jerusalem is now complete." It may be just so much hyperbole, but I feel there is a troubling grain of truth to it. The overall article, once you're past the opening volley, is well considered. The article is here: What has prompted Canada’s move against Iran?
I heard an interview with Canada's former ambassador to Iran, John Mundy, on CBC this morning. If there is anyone that has a vague clue about the value of a move such as what Canada has just done, he would be the one. He is just as mortified by Ottawa's decision as anyone and indicates that it was both unprecedended and baffling. As he acknowledges the issues with Iran, he states "These are actually reasons why we should stay. When the going gets rough you really need your diplomats. Canada’s tradition is to be one of the last countries to leave in a crisis, not the first". He also states "our policy towards Iran is the first time in decades that a Canadian prime minister has acted to reduce the diplomatic opportunities for peace during a crisis". Wither Canada indeed... Here is the letter: Cutting off Tehran looks like a mistake.
Leaving an embassy there (the above articles gives many good reasons) is just common sense, even if the diplomats there are at some risk. They are supposed to be more than just bureaucrats, they are eyes, the ears, and the voice of Canada. We are now blind, deaf, and mute in Iran, and that will serve nobody at all, neither in the short nor the long run. Here is an editorial in the quite conservative Globe and Mail: Better to talk to your enemies.
And two more articles to round things off: Split with Iran stokes diaspora’s fear, draws Israel’s praise. A bit more info in that one. And then typical fearmongering using vague inuendo and no details by Harper: Nothing Iran does in wake of severed ties would surprise him: Harper . Interestingly, much of the article focuses again on how Russia is strongly supporting the Syrian government, but it seems to be okay for Canada to agree to disagree on Russia's involvement in the civil war there though.
I believe that this event will be remembered by historians as a collosal bollocks... unless Isreal and/or the US does launch a strike against Iran in the reasonably near future. I'm personally hoping for it being the bollocks point of view looking back on Canada's actions.
I like what one person wrote particularly well: "Although his swearing-in at Rideau Hall must have happened in the dead of night, Canada appears to have a new foreign minister. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu. His day job may be prime minister of Israel, but Canada’s abrupt actions against Iran seem to confirm that the Harper government’s outsourcing of Canada’s Middle East policy to Jerusalem is now complete." It may be just so much hyperbole, but I feel there is a troubling grain of truth to it. The overall article, once you're past the opening volley, is well considered. The article is here: What has prompted Canada’s move against Iran?
I heard an interview with Canada's former ambassador to Iran, John Mundy, on CBC this morning. If there is anyone that has a vague clue about the value of a move such as what Canada has just done, he would be the one. He is just as mortified by Ottawa's decision as anyone and indicates that it was both unprecedended and baffling. As he acknowledges the issues with Iran, he states "These are actually reasons why we should stay. When the going gets rough you really need your diplomats. Canada’s tradition is to be one of the last countries to leave in a crisis, not the first". He also states "our policy towards Iran is the first time in decades that a Canadian prime minister has acted to reduce the diplomatic opportunities for peace during a crisis". Wither Canada indeed... Here is the letter: Cutting off Tehran looks like a mistake.
Leaving an embassy there (the above articles gives many good reasons) is just common sense, even if the diplomats there are at some risk. They are supposed to be more than just bureaucrats, they are eyes, the ears, and the voice of Canada. We are now blind, deaf, and mute in Iran, and that will serve nobody at all, neither in the short nor the long run. Here is an editorial in the quite conservative Globe and Mail: Better to talk to your enemies.
And two more articles to round things off: Split with Iran stokes diaspora’s fear, draws Israel’s praise. A bit more info in that one. And then typical fearmongering using vague inuendo and no details by Harper: Nothing Iran does in wake of severed ties would surprise him: Harper . Interestingly, much of the article focuses again on how Russia is strongly supporting the Syrian government, but it seems to be okay for Canada to agree to disagree on Russia's involvement in the civil war there though.
I believe that this event will be remembered by historians as a collosal bollocks... unless Isreal and/or the US does launch a strike against Iran in the reasonably near future. I'm personally hoping for it being the bollocks point of view looking back on Canada's actions.
Agreed!
Date: 2012-09-11 01:22 am (UTC)ttyl
Farrell
funny
Date: 2012-09-11 03:20 am (UTC)