That, at any rate, is what one must infer from the story we have been told. Perhaps the government had good reasons to act as it did, alone and without warning; perhaps it even has good reasons not to tell us what they were. But the reasons it has offered to date do not add up.
That Iran is a rogue state, a source of instability in the Middle East and violence around the world, is not in dispute. Neither can serious issue be taken with any of the Harper government’s specific charges against the mullahs’ regime: that it is, as it has now been officially designated, a state sponsor of terrorism, through its links with Hamas and other groups; that it is the principal backer of the Assad dictatorship in Syria, and as such complicit in its crimes against its people; that it has, at various times and through various mouthpieces, openly called for the destruction of Israel, which is to say the genocide of its people; and that it is actively seeking, and may be close to possessing, the capacity to make nuclear weapons, whatever claims it may make to the contrary.
But if all of these are true today, they were equally true six months ago, or a year, or five years, for that matter. If they make the case for cutting off diplomatic relations now, why did they not then? What has changed in the interim? If, additionally, the government was concerned about the safety of Canadian diplomats in Tehran, why should that concern have suddenly become so urgent? Were they in any greater danger as of last week than they were in the past? If so, how?
And what, beyond spiriting our diplomats out of the country, is to be achieved by this largely symbolic snub? To be sure, symbolism counts in international relations, and if any regime merits such treatment, it is surely Iran’s. But, at both the symbolic and practical level, Iran is already the target of a far more stringent expression of international disapproval, the system of economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations.
The efficacy of those sanctions may be debated, as indeed may be the underlying question of whether the world can tolerate a nuclear Iran. But if you believe, as the government of Canada plainly does, that such an outcome is unthinkable, and if you believe sanctions are likely to prove inadequate to prevent it, that surely calls for more drastic measures, not less: military strikes, not withdrawing their ambassador’s credentials.
Or if diplomatic isolation is the appropriate next step, if shuttered embassies will succeed where sanctions have failed, would that not argue for a coordinated move among the world’s powers to do likewise, rather than Canada acting on its own? Nothing wrong with Canada taking the initiative, but is there evidence that other nations are likely to follow where we lead?
Of course, just because the government’s stated reasons are unpersuasive doesn’t necessarily mean it hasn’t any, or that the ones it has are bad. To argue, as some have, that Iran is not a threat — to Israel, to the region, to the world — is naive at best; to claim the Canadian government is somehow in the thrall of Israel or the “Israel lobby,” rather worse than naive.
If unlikely to do much good, I can’t see closing our embassy having much downside, either. The notion of Canada playing some sort of “honest broker” role, in Iran or the Middle East generally, is simply fanciful: the sole historic example, Pearson and Suez, is now nearly 60 years in the past. Whether the issue were the treatment of Canadian citizens in Iran or war with Israel, there’s precious little evidence the Iranian regime would pay us any heed, with an ambassador or without.
What, then, might be the true explanation for the government’s decision? I can think of two: one creditable, the other less so. The first is that it really does think, as many suspect, that Israel is likely to attack Iran before long, possibly as early as this fall, and is removing its diplomatic staff in preparation. If it is right, or even if there is a strong probability of it, it would be hard to object to such precautions — though why Canada should have come to this conclusion, independently of other Western nations, would remain a mystery.
The other possibility is that the government wishes to make a conspicuous show of its position: to deliberately set itself a little to one side from the international consensus rather than, as in the past, carefully aligning itself within it. Again, nothing wrong with that, on its own: If it helps to make a point; if its principled concerns are justified; if its practical effects are benign; and if, by the by, it also happens to please an important domestic constituency, well, a little bit of grandstanding never hurt anyone.
Either would be a more convincing explanation of the government’s actions than the ones it has presented.
Original Article
Source: national post
Author: Andrew Coyne
No comments:
Post a Comment