Canada Rolls Over: The Politics of Human Rights
By Tanya Domi
Adjunct Professor
Maxime Bernier, Canada’s Foreign Minister, announced last week that the ministry would rewrite a training manual for Canadian diplomats which listed the United States as an employer of torture methods, specifically citing the Guantanamo Bay Prison, after the U.S. government sharply rebuked its closest neighbor and ally. Bernier expressed regret for “embarrassment caused by public disclosure of the manual used in the department’s torture awareness training.”
Amnesty International released the training manual to the press which had been obtained through its legal action investigating alleged abuse of Afghan prisoners turned over to local Afghani authorities by Canadian soldiers. The Canadian torture awareness manual also listed China, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Syria as states where persons could face possible torture.
In diplomatic speak, Bernier went well beyond the customary expression of ‘regret’ as he further stated: “It [the manual] contains a list that wrongly includes some of our closest allies. I have directed that the manual be reviewed and rewritten. The manual is neither a policy document nor a statement of policy. As such, it does not convey the government’s views or position.”
Bernier’s statement is a colossal rollover by any measure. As a ‘middle power,’ Canada’s internationalist policies have been highly respected globally for its support for human rights. Canada’s
human rights advocacy has been its raison d’etre and has provided it
with a highly influential role as a member of world bodies like the
United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Why Stephen Harper’s government would throw its lot in with the Bush Administration on America’s widely discredited human rights policies–due no doubt to substantiated reports for employing torture in its “war on terror,”– seems to be both short-sighted for Canada abroad, as well as for consumption with its domestic electorate. Canadians have long embraced internationalism as a center-piece of its foreign policy. Its importance has shifted from more to less emphasis and back over time, depending on which party is in power and the world situation. However, Harper’s Tory party’s approval ratings have recently dipped and the question of what type of leader Harper should be appears to be on voters’ minds. There is some basis to believe that Canadians do not approve of Bush Administration human rights policies and may view Harper with a growing sense of dismay over his government’s latest embarrassing capitulation to U.S. demands.
Related Posts
- SIPA News call for articles on science, tech and policy
- China steps up Internet censorship; so does much of Asia
- New Media and the Iranian Elections
- China blocks Twitter, Hotmail, Flickr before Tiananmen anniversary
More from this author
- Radovan Karadzic Arrested in Belgrade, Soon to be Transferred to The Hague
- Kosovo Declares Independence; Serbs Burn U.S. Embassy, Russia Condemns Kosovo’s Status
- Global Elections: Potential Setbacks and Gains Foreseen Across Diverse Regions
- Pro-Western Incumbent Boris Tadic Re-elected to Presidency of Serbia
Subscribe to this author
It’s hard to separate fact from opinion, given your breathless prose. And it might be hard for other readers to accept your contention that Maxime Bernier’s decision not to lump the US in with China, Iran, and Syria on a human rights issue is a “colossal rollover”. You’re probably putting more importance than even the Canadians do on what appears to be a minor training manual for Canadian diplomats. They probably have hundreds of pamphlets and guides in their Foreign Ministry training divisions, very few of which are likely to be vetted and cleared as official Government statements on any position. There are probably such guidelines at Columbia, uncleared by the University president or board, which might embarrass the institution if they appeared on the front page of the Times, but which nonetheless serve a purpose within the confines of the office or department where they are posted.
There are probably many in Ottawa, as there are no doubt many at Columbia, who disagree with the US government’s detention policies, but that is not the same as saying that the Canadian government wishes to issue a policy statement identifying the U.S. as a government that engages in torture. Surely you understand enough about diplomacy, particularly among friendly neighbors, to see this point.
Nor does Bernier’s desire not to create a bilateral irritant out of an unvetted training manual somehow undermine Canada’s status as a supporter of human rights, to charge otherwise just sounds hysterical. As for the electoral consequences of Bernier’s decision, I have a feeling that Bernier (whose family has held seats in Parliament since the 1980s) and Harper (whose own political career stretches back two decades) need little unsolicited advice on how to take the temperature of the Canadian electorate.
In terms of diplomatic statements, Bernier’s statements go well beyond the simple norm of expressing a simple “regret.” So it seems the U.S. extracted a pound of flesh publicly, which I think is humiliating to Canada. Who is the U.S. to lecture Canada on human rights? Especially the Bush Administration, who has done more to damage U.S. image in a short 7 years, than perhaps at any other time in our 232-year history.
The juxtaposed sense of your comments and the first respondent’s (Richard T.) comments is thought-provoking in a most troubling way. It represents and illustrates the consequence of a terrible absence of leadership at the top levels of the U.S. government and society. In my fifty five years I do not recall another subject, the present one being the use of torture by agents of the U.S., on which the nation struggles in the complete absence of any, no less inspired or even responsible, leadership emanating from the White House. What we get instead is dissemblance or silence.
The subject of torture by Americans raises profound questions of our purpose, our identity and our place, both as a nation and as the citizens who make it up and, theoretically, who determine its’ course.
While it’s easy to concede that no reasonable person would be cheerful in advocating inflicting pain and wounds, up to and including fatal ones, on others as an instrument of American national policy, we obviously struggle desperately between the views of torture as a “necessary evil” in a hard world and a perhaps more idealized view of an ‘American’ capacity to make our way without resort to what must surely be generally agreed to be horrific methods of well-documented questionable value. I am among those who live in constant dismay that this administration so obviously has no interest whatsoever in approaching and/or remaining in sympathetic closeness to our ideal view of ourselves and our ways.
To whom do we turn, then, for lessons with which we can make our way? Our own government has long proven a hollow drum, beaten only by the Cheney-ite industrio-war makers, and is of no use as a source of reasoned, honest discussion from which we can take direction as we struggle, within and without our selves, for answers to our questions. Is it so wrong then, to look to those who, ever-tolerant of our sometimes silly ways, have been our friendly neighbors for nearly as long as we have been a nation, the people of Canada and their government? It should not be easy at all, to dismiss the thought that some likely-responsible people within that government have made a reasoned choice to include the United States among those nations who are known to resort to torture, when it is so thoroughly known around the world? Perhaps the most distinguished military veteran of our times, Sen. John McCain, with whom I do not share political sympathies but for whom I have a measure of respect beyond political thinking, unhappily concedes the same fact and opposes it. If there is an American alive who knows of torture in all respects, including its’ consequences, it is he.
How much does it really matter at what level of the Canadian government a decision was made to acknowledge a truth. It is, by the way, a truth, a fact that so obviously disturbs so many Americans as to preoccupy the nation for many months now. This is not the first time our Canadian neighbors have reached what many of us Americans agree is a much more straightforward reading of fact than we seem capable of, as we beat each other unsociably about the head with our conflicting views in this society.
Of course the administration would react in negative fulminations about such a statement by one of our two closest neighbors, and a longtime ally. What disheartens me is that the government of Canada, rather than choose to invoke or provoke (I’m not sure I care which just now) a badly needed airing of this subject among acknowledged friends, they choose to back away mouthing words I can only hope are a pro forma display of regret. In fact, the manual listing the United States among nations sanctioning torture is correct. While not every American may agree with my estimate of that situation enough do, and enough of us are profoundly shaken by it, to make obvious the desperate need for a wider conversation on the subject, even if only invoked by the actions of our friends because our own leaders lack the courage and integrity. They do not even respect the American citizenry enough to agree that we deserve a substantive discussion of such a serious matter.
I am grateful to the Canadian government for taking an action that provokes much needed discussion here in the U.S. I am grateful for the forbearance Canadians have typically shown toward their easily-roused neighbors to the south. I am grateful for Tanya, who chose to put a blunt appraisal, backed by knowledge and experience (including military, diplomatic, political and other of direct pertinence as a basis for reaching her opinions) forward as yet another call to discussion that I can hardly view as being in any way hysterical in tenor. And I’m grateful to Richard T. for his response, which invoked mine, as I so badly hope these words invoke many, many others.
I am neither so naive nor so delicate of stomach to think that there will ever be a world without torture. I am, however, still proud enough to be an American as to be bluntly and completely unwilling to concede our majestic ideals without a damn good debate and a deep soul-searching. There must be workable alternatives; if none exist we must create them. This, torture, is a subject that demands our immediate attention.
Terrific comment, Mr. Barfield. I agree wholeheartedly that the U.S. is long overdue for a thoughtful discussion on the use of government-sanctioned torture, particularly in an environment where the government has consciously cultivated a sense of pervasive dread in order to justify its law enforcement decisions. And while I welcome the views of all comers, I am not convinced that Americans require the input of Canadians to begin this debate.
These discussions are long and painful, judging by the history of the debates over abortion, firearms control, civil rights, and capital punishment. They have no end but take on a life of their own with certain signposts, minefields, shorthand, and intellectual stipulations along the way. Americans know how to discuss tough issues. Sure, it might be interesting to hear a Canadian perspective, but do Americans really need outside help to spark debates? After reading the clarity and passion expressed in your own views, I’m not sure they do.
The value of a therapeutic American national debate on torture, which you persuasively advocate, is a far different subject from whether the Canadian government needs to spark a bilateral row, at a time and on a ground not of its own choosing, with its closest neighbor, based on an accidental inter-departmental training guide.
If the Canadian government wants to approach the U.S. on the subject of torture, it will surely find better avenues to do so. But I am wholly unconvinced that such a gesture is necessary for Americans to begin grappling with this timely topic.
I concur with Richard T.’s initial post.
In responding to “Mr. T.” (*GRIN*) (I pity the fool…!) Ms. Domi questions, “Who is the U.S. to lecture Canada on human rights?” Well… (*SMILE*)… first of all, Adjunct Professor Domi - not to nitpick - but a nation is not a “who.” But second of all, and on a far more serious note, to even question a government’s “right” to take public positions seems to me to demonstrate a mindset exactly OPPOSITE of the one you profess to possess.
Nations have an absolute right (as do individuals, by the way) to take positions, OBJECT to the positions of other nations, ASK for other nations to change their positions… etc. Canada would have been well within its “rights” to refuse to act in accordance with U.S. wishes… but logicly, if you believe that, then how can you object to Canada making a decision to act upon U.S. objections? Free will is free will… you either believe that or you don’t. Canada has every “right” to act as her government feels best. (*SHRUG*)
Also… and with all due respect and in the spirit of offering hopefully constructive criticism, statements such as “…the Bush Administration, who (sic) has done more to damage U.S. image in a short 7 years, than perhaps at any other time in our 232-year history,” simply do *NOT* add credence to your arguments, professor. Ya ever hear of the Indian Wars? Slavery? Japanese internment during WW-2? (You get the point… right???)
Oh… and in the same spirit of well-intentioned free advice… to Gene F. Barfield I’ll simply say - with a smile - using phrases such as “the Cheney-ite industrio-war makers” tend to set a certain tone that is not - IMHO - condusive to being taken seriously. (*SHRUG*) No offense meant. No personal “attack.” Simply stating what I believe to be the truth.
Anyway, folks… just my two cents worth.
BILL
Bravo BILL!!!
you almost always have the best comments on this site — polite, honest and right.
Thank you, Sophia… thank you very much. I really appreciate the kind words.
BILL