Sunday, February 20, 2005
Canada Wakes Up, and There’s the Middle East
I don’t know if panic is in order. I’m not sure I’d even want to explore what, if any, official Ottawa policies cover critical trouble spots, including if not especially the Balkans and Central Asia. It may have been only days ago that an insight was served up with what happened over the Middle East.
Perhaps it was a case of the Prime Minister misspeaking, nothing more, and nothing less. On the other hand, some of his remarks may have provided conclusive evidence in support of the proposition that any entity tends to define others in self-reflexive terms. Canadians see themselves as peacekeepers. According to PM Paul Martin, the Middle East dynamic, given all its problems and at present the part of the world most likely to contribute to any deterioration of the international system, is best seen through that peacekeeping prism.
The whole situation unfolded something like this: On 14 February 2005 popular former PM of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri died in a vicious bomb attack, setting off a wave of protest and outpouring of grief in his homeland. Martin, quick to condemn the violence, also mourned the loss. Yet only days later, Martin seemed either all too blissfully ignorant of the region’s politics, or entirely too willing to apply a very unique interpretation to conditions there. Lebanon’s neighbour Syria, long regarded by the international community and Hariri’s supporters as an occupier, emerged in the PM’s rhetoric a peacekeeper. On 17 February, Martin, exiting a Cabinet meeting, told members of the press “and it is clear that, if the Syrians are in Lebanon, it is because peace should be kept, and there was certainly a failure” [cited in “Critics Pounce on Martin’s Syria Stumble,” by Jeff Sallot, Globe and Mail, 18 February 2005. Also posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050217.wxsyria18/BNStory/National/]. He reportedly said nothing more, but had ample time to either withdraw the statement or clarify. Opposition parties then went to work, giving the PM at least 14 chances to set the record straight, and just maybe to retract the remarks. He did no such thing. In the days following, Liberals opted for damage control. Without actually apologizing, Martin attempted to step away from his observation. Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew, in the region only a week prior, urging Syria and Lebanon to support Israeli-Palestinian peace plans and claiming Canada’s limited capital could be crucial in resolving refugee problems, was left to explain Martin’s latest gaffe cost Ottawa no credibility. Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe likely offered the most insight and clarity, noting it was incomprehensible that Martin couldn’t just apologize and move on.
Some are reminding us that our country has a poor record with the Middle East. And at such times, it may not be so bad that our ability to impact global events is, mercifully, limited. For instance, “in 2002, Jean Chrétien, Mr. Martin's predecessor, stumbled repeatedly during a trip to the Middle East on highly nuanced issues …Former Progressive Conservative prime minister Joe Clark had to backtrack on a 1979 campaign promise to move the Canadian embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a step that Palestinians would have interpreted as de facto Canadian recognition of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank” [“Critics Pounce on Martin’s Syria Stumble,” by Jeff Sallot, Globe and Mail, 18 February 2005. Also posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050217.wxsyria18/BNStory/National/].
Chrétien and Clark made their blunders in simpler times, when tensions seemed subdued. While it is productive to point out what leaders in the past have done, it ought not divert from how serious problems in the region are today. Ignoring Israeli-Palestinian matters, one discovers Syria and Iran finding common cause. Turkey seems nervous over the Kurdish question. And then there’s Iraq where, so far, Ottawa officials maintain our policy remains the same: no Canadians will be sent to that country, though there just may be a commitment to train Iraqi forces in Jordan. With all this going on, US diplomats are opening back channels, engaging Iraqi insurgents in talks that might go nowhere. While it may be true that foreign policy, unlike social issues, isn’t about to get much traction and scrutiny in the forum of Canadian public opinion, that doesn’t mean this shouldn’t be seen as the worst possible moment to dust off the Joe Clark playbook.
Stan Markotich
Submit comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com ¶ 3:10 PM
I don’t know if panic is in order. I’m not sure I’d even want to explore what, if any, official Ottawa policies cover critical trouble spots, including if not especially the Balkans and Central Asia. It may have been only days ago that an insight was served up with what happened over the Middle East.
Perhaps it was a case of the Prime Minister misspeaking, nothing more, and nothing less. On the other hand, some of his remarks may have provided conclusive evidence in support of the proposition that any entity tends to define others in self-reflexive terms. Canadians see themselves as peacekeepers. According to PM Paul Martin, the Middle East dynamic, given all its problems and at present the part of the world most likely to contribute to any deterioration of the international system, is best seen through that peacekeeping prism.
The whole situation unfolded something like this: On 14 February 2005 popular former PM of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri died in a vicious bomb attack, setting off a wave of protest and outpouring of grief in his homeland. Martin, quick to condemn the violence, also mourned the loss. Yet only days later, Martin seemed either all too blissfully ignorant of the region’s politics, or entirely too willing to apply a very unique interpretation to conditions there. Lebanon’s neighbour Syria, long regarded by the international community and Hariri’s supporters as an occupier, emerged in the PM’s rhetoric a peacekeeper. On 17 February, Martin, exiting a Cabinet meeting, told members of the press “and it is clear that, if the Syrians are in Lebanon, it is because peace should be kept, and there was certainly a failure” [cited in “Critics Pounce on Martin’s Syria Stumble,” by Jeff Sallot, Globe and Mail, 18 February 2005. Also posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050217.wxsyria18/BNStory/National/]. He reportedly said nothing more, but had ample time to either withdraw the statement or clarify. Opposition parties then went to work, giving the PM at least 14 chances to set the record straight, and just maybe to retract the remarks. He did no such thing. In the days following, Liberals opted for damage control. Without actually apologizing, Martin attempted to step away from his observation. Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew, in the region only a week prior, urging Syria and Lebanon to support Israeli-Palestinian peace plans and claiming Canada’s limited capital could be crucial in resolving refugee problems, was left to explain Martin’s latest gaffe cost Ottawa no credibility. Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe likely offered the most insight and clarity, noting it was incomprehensible that Martin couldn’t just apologize and move on.
Some are reminding us that our country has a poor record with the Middle East. And at such times, it may not be so bad that our ability to impact global events is, mercifully, limited. For instance, “in 2002, Jean Chrétien, Mr. Martin's predecessor, stumbled repeatedly during a trip to the Middle East on highly nuanced issues …Former Progressive Conservative prime minister Joe Clark had to backtrack on a 1979 campaign promise to move the Canadian embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a step that Palestinians would have interpreted as de facto Canadian recognition of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank” [“Critics Pounce on Martin’s Syria Stumble,” by Jeff Sallot, Globe and Mail, 18 February 2005. Also posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050217.wxsyria18/BNStory/National/].
Chrétien and Clark made their blunders in simpler times, when tensions seemed subdued. While it is productive to point out what leaders in the past have done, it ought not divert from how serious problems in the region are today. Ignoring Israeli-Palestinian matters, one discovers Syria and Iran finding common cause. Turkey seems nervous over the Kurdish question. And then there’s Iraq where, so far, Ottawa officials maintain our policy remains the same: no Canadians will be sent to that country, though there just may be a commitment to train Iraqi forces in Jordan. With all this going on, US diplomats are opening back channels, engaging Iraqi insurgents in talks that might go nowhere. While it may be true that foreign policy, unlike social issues, isn’t about to get much traction and scrutiny in the forum of Canadian public opinion, that doesn’t mean this shouldn’t be seen as the worst possible moment to dust off the Joe Clark playbook.
Stan Markotich
Submit comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com ¶ 3:10 PM
