Open this photo in gallery:
Prime Minister Mark Carney takes part in an armchair discussion at the Lowy Institute in Sydney, Australia, on Wednesday.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Few decisions are more important for a Canadian prime minister than whether to support the United States on matters of war and peace. With such decisions, legacies can be made and unmade.
Jean Chrétien offers a prime example. He’s been dining out on his refusal to join George W. Bush’s coalition of the willing in the Iraq war for decades. A signature act of Lester Pearson’s foreign policy was his condemnation of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Vietnam bombing – and the tongue-lashing he took from LBJ for doing so. There was the cantankerous resistance of John Diefenbaker to the Kennedy administration during the Cuban missile crisis, which factored into Dief’s defeat in the 1963 election.
This past weekend, Mark Carney came face-to-face with a war decision, and he stumbled initially. With his instant backing for Donald Trump’s attack on Iran – faster than practically any other leader – he needlessly put himself out on a limb.
Campbell Clark: Carney picks a realpolitik side on Iran war
The rush to judgment saw him out of step with Canadian public opinion. An Angus Reid poll shows that only one in three support the bombing campaign. It put him in contradiction of his own values which, as he stated in January, include “the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter.”
If the war went badly, the perception that Mr. Carney was in lockstep with the loathed President who waged it would forever stain his legacy.
Consequently, the retreat. Just a few days after making his decision, the Prime Minister walked a big part of it back. He said the military attacks are a failure of the rules-based order and appear to be a violation of international law.
While maintaining his full support for ridding the evil regime in Iran of any capacity to get nuclear weapons, he chastised the U.S. and Israel, saying they “have acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting with allies, including Canada.” He called for de-escalation, saying that the war is “causing growing threats to civilian life.”
Initially, Mr. Carney had said “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon …” European allies Germany, France and Britain hadn’t gone so far as to say they supported what the U.S. was doing. On the January attack on Venezuela and the abduction of president Nicolás Maduro, Mr. Carney had been like that, too – more circumspect.
Tuesday’s turnaround – going from green light to warning light on “Operation Epstein Fury,” as some are calling Operation Epic Fury – is somewhat embarrassing. He is a seasoned, knowledgeable man whose decisions are normally well thought out. It’s among the reasons Canadians give him such high grades. But at least he showed a willingness to make the change after not getting his messaging right the first time.
In Washington, the course correction could cause him problems. We can bet that Mr. Trump was pleased at seeing Canada so quick to support his invasion. It might have translated to some goodwill on his part in trade negotiations; this may have factored into Mr. Carney’s thinking as well. But there is no hope of goodwill from Mr. Trump now – the opposite is more likely.
Opinion: Two wrongs don’t make a right in the Iran war
The war is broadening, spinning out of control as many feared it would. This likely influenced Mr. Carney’s change of position and Canadians’ public opinion. If it was another President conducting this war, they might look upon it more favourably.
The war debate is all about whether the ends justify the means. For those who believe they do, the ends in this case – ridding the world of the evil Iranian regime – is so beneficial, so necessary, that if the war’s goals are achieved, all the disreputable means would be forgiven. It wouldn’t matter that there was no UN authorization, no prior NATO approval, no approval from the U.S. Congress as required by the Constitution, no concern for apparently violating international law. But to believe this, you’d have to believe that the Iranian nuclear facilities the President said were “obliterated” by his bombing last summer had miraculously reappeared and were targeting the U.S. – just like those non-existent weapons of mass destruction did in Iraq.
Mr. Carney has now taken the position that the means are a paramount consideration. In Davos, he said the rules-based international order was being upended by hegemonic major powers. His initial position on this war put him in the grip of one. His course correction, in keeping with his decoupling from the U.S., loosens the tie.
