I’m not much of a fan of the National Post as I find many of its writers a lot more right leaning (I’m trying to be kind) than I have tolerance for. However, as intolerant as I am of these writers, I do occasionally  read their drivel if for nothing else to make sure I really am still intolerant of them.

So, rather than subject myself to actually reading the National Post, I follow them on Twitter and scan the headlines they tweet for items of interest. One caught my attention today “Louise Arbour speaks out on the world’s worst country — Canada“, a piece written by Kelly McParland.

I have a lot of respect for Mme Arbour having read about her actions in Bosnia and the Hague. I admired her gutsy stands, especially in bringing the indictment against Slobodan Milosevic in the face of some of the NATO countries demonstrating their lack of will in bringing him to justice. I admired that she is not only a gutsy woman in an often man’s world but a gutsy Canadian woman.

McParland on the other hand, appears to be very good at the type of armchair journalism which can be pretty safe to engage in. You know, the kind of writing that bloggers, like me, do from the comfort of our homes. Except he gets paid and should be writing to a higher standard.

What McParland was slamming Arbour over was her candid remarks made to Olivia Ward in her piece today in the Toronto Star; “Louise Arbour can finally talk about world’s worst regimes“. During the interview Arbour shared that she can now speak her mind in her current position as President and CEO of the International Crisis Group.

What set McParland off is this:

“Is Canada punching below its weight?” she says. “Is it punching at all?”

Ottawa, Arbour argues, is “largely absent on the international scene. It’s very difficult to capture any kind of message, position or form of engagement these days.”

And she adds, “when I was prosecutor in 1996, it mattered what Canada thought. On issues of justice and ethics, it mattered what the Canadian position was. There was a sense that you would get an honest, well-thought-out approach. Not just a raw pursuit of ideological or national interest.”

I went over and read the piece myself. It didn’t take me a degree in journalism to take a reasonable guess that Olivia Ward was engaged in an interview with Louise Arbour and since she had limited space for her piece, she focused on Arbour’s remarks that were relevant to Canadians. It is after all, a Canadian newspaper and Canadian audience. You can pick up pretty easily that there were other countries discussed.

Just to make sure my impressions weren’t just assumptions on my part I shot an email off to Ward. Apparently McParland didn’t think about that simple little stop, but then it would have robbed him of his rant material. She responded in short order and yes, my assumptions were correct.

Arbour is correct in her comments. It is very difficult to know where Canada stands on much of anything and when you do figure out a stand it drips with partisan ideology. Canada at one time had a nuanced approach to the conflicts in the Middle East.

We didn’t trumpet Israel as taking a “measured response” when they bombed the Gaza. We wouldn’t have stayed silent over their use of phosphorus weapons on a civilian population, like we have recently. We wouldn’t have cut off funding to an aid group like KAIROS for having the temerity to criticise the actions of Israel.

When Canada took a stand, it meant something more than pandering to the right wing Christian Evangelical interests in the political party of government.

These days, Harper is quick to strut on the world stage and claim Canada is no longer a ‘soft power’, but with our military refitting and boots on the ground in places like Afghanistan and Haiti that we can prove ourselves as ‘hard power’ through our capabilities.

One of his most recent chest thumpings took place in Haiti in February. I’ll give him his due, Canada reacted swiftly to the devastating earthquake there on February 12th. Putting 2000 Canadian troops on the ground is swift order should have made most Canadians puff a bit with pride. Course, less noticed was that within a couple of months, those troops were just as quickly pulled out.

Having never heard of ICG organization, I looked it up and spent some time exploring their site. Too bad McParland didn’t take some time to do the same. It places Arbour’s comments in even more perspective. She isn’t speaking just from past experiences, she’s speaking from today’s experiences.

This 15 year old non-profit group is independent and non-governmental. They focus on trying to prevent and resolve deadly conflicts like Afghanistan amongst about 60 hot spots in the world. A scan down the list of their board members shows an international cast of all stars who have had up close experience in hot spots. They are not armchair quarterbacks.

The reports they have prepared and delivered on their research in these areas are available for reading on the website. I took a read down through their most recent report on Afghanistan and from their linked to another paper and was scanning down through that when I came across this:

Kabul recently surreptitiously resurrected an amnesty law that grants immunity to the warlords who currently rule the country and to the brutal extremists who seek to supplant them. The law may well apply to Baradar if he agreed to join the reconciliation process. This controversial “National Reconciliation, General Amnesty and National Stability Law” had languished in legal limbo since first appearing three years ago, until it was put on the books late last year in an apparent election-related deal with several of Karzai’s key supporters. The law grants blanket amnesty to the perpetrators of some of the worst atrocities, forcing victims to negotiate their claims through the virtually defunct Afghan justice system.

Canada, the US and other allies appear to have placed a cone of silence over this action. Thankfully the International Criminal Court, to which Afghanistan signed on to in 2005 and is thus subject to, is considering launching a formal investigation into war crimes there in the last seven years. With some of the Taliban leadership in custody in Pakistan, the ICC appears to be the mostly likely place to bring them to justice.

So, why exactly is ‘hard power’ Harper not standing up and breaking the silence on the Karzai government’s corruption and subterfuge? Why is he not pressing the other allies to step up and demand better when our country’s blood and treasure has gone into trying to bring stability to this country?

If McParland wants to have a good rant, he might want to look where Arbour is coming from and what is backing her up. He’d have enough material to keep his pay cheque coming for several months.

These Articles May Be Related:

notice: The content of this post contains my opinions and my right to express them. I will respect your right to express your opinion in the comments as long as you’re not abusive and you respect my right to my opinion.

Tags: , , , , ,

Related posts