Carney Has Always Prioritized Economics Over Ethics
Carney's support of strikes on Iran only confuses those with blinders on
The US and Israel launched illegal attacks on Iran in a supposed mission to destroy their nuclear weapons capabilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency has said the country does not have plans for development of these weapons. US President Donald Trump has previously boasted about eliminating their facilities, while his government said the capabilities are years away at best. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the decision to launch the attacks was due to Israel planning their own attacks. Iran has been the target of warhawks for decades, stretching back to the country's 1979 Islamic Revolution. But US meddling in Iran's affairs dates back to 1953, when the US and UK overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, who was wrestling control of the country's oil production away from the UK.
As can plainly be seen, these attacks are a particularly acute example of US imperialism. Regardless of your opinions on the government of Iran, which has certainly exercised a vast and violent control over the country's citizens, unilaterally attacking a sovereign nation under false pretenses is a disaster that breaks international law. Indeed, by domestic standards, putting aside the US government's clear lack of interest in enforcement, the order to strike was likely illegal. None of this matters to Trump, Netanyahu or, yes, Prime Minister Mark Carney.
Carney, on a worldwide trip to shore up trade relations with multiple countries, has been clear: he supports the US and Israel's illegal strikes. On the day the assault began, Carney also parroted the lie about nuclear weapons development, then supported the attackers. "Canada supports the United states acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security." A bold statement to make. Two countries carrying out a genocide for the past two-and-a-half years attack a sovereign nation and Carney believes the target of these attacks deserves more condemnation.
Important aside: Carney's trip to India, where he made the first comments cited here, has been criticized by a wide range of people for burying the ties between the Indian government and assassination attempts against Sikh activists in Canada.
The next day, reports emerged that 18 Canadian exchange officers most likely participated in planning the US strike on Iran. The Department of National Defence has denied this. But as retired major-general Denis Thompson told CBC News' Murray Brewster, "Unless the Canadian government said, 'No, you cannot be directly engaged in this conflict,' then … typically, when we attach officers to another military and they go to war and the prime minister endorses this attack, then it's quite likely that they're actively engaged in the targeting process."
On March 4, in Australia, Carney repeated debunked talking points about Iran's nuclear capabilities and said that Canada took this position of US support "with some regret." Imagine hearing that. "We regret to inform you we're happy that our allies are breaking international law to kill 165 school girls with double-tap strikes if our foreign policy aims are achieved."
Scott Martin
Despite Carney's repeated posturing for Canada to carve a way through the international order for middle powers, his Davos speech ingeniously allowed enough wiggle room to be read as both defiant and acquiescent. His new line in Australia referred to Canada "taking the world as it is, not passively waiting for a world we wish to be." This, along side the bold stance of "It appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law."
It's fitting that Carney made these statements in Australia, because Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese essentially mirrored his stance in his own announcement. More lies about nuclear weapons development and a support for the illegal strikes. If my repeated stressing of these points seems out of place, consider how much news coverage has actually included the reality of Iran's nuclear program in contrast to these public statements.
But Carney's stance of standing with the US goes even further. When asked if he stands by Canada not being involved militarily, Carney replied that "One can never categorically rule out participation... We will stand by our allies."
All of this taken alongside the massive military spending allocated under Carney's leadership, as well as the continuation of support for both Israel and resource-extraction politics shows a clear pattern. Carney's aim as prime minister is, and has always been, economic growth over all else. Consider the prime minister active choice to ignore evidence that India has conducted assassination campaigns in Canada. Trade is a bigger priority for him than the integrity or safety of Canada.
While Carney is contemplating Canadians joining the US campaign against Iran, people in this country will not be as eager. Canadians view the US as a greater threat to world peace than China and Russia combined. Still, Carney spouts rhetoric that refuses to admit to the consequences of this new reality; One that he opportunistically capitalized on in his Davos sales pitch. Are we supposed to believe that support tinged with some sort of nebulous regret means jack shit?
In one Toronto Star piece, columnist Bruce Arthur suggests Carney's reaction to the illegal Iran strikes throws his broader stance into question. "For a prime minister who saw so clearly in Davos," Arthur writes. "This all felt very muddled, and one thing about that Davos speech that appealed was that for all the pragmatism, it felt like Carney still stood for something."
Analysis such as this only works if you consider Carney's Davos speech to be anything other than an advertisement. In fairness, the sycophantic news coverage of his speech did everything to obscure this fact, so it's understandable why the public would be confused. But Carney has made it perfectly impossible to ignore, long before this crisis, that economic growth is the only principle he and his government stands by. As members of the news media, we should be making this clear, not feigning shock.
