What to know
- Prime Minister Mark Carney and Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand initially supported U.S. action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons following strikes by the U.S. and Israel.
- Critics, including Victoria MP Will Greaves, accused Canada of endorsing unilateral military force and failing to prioritize civilian protection.
- Days later, Carney emphasized Canada was “not consulted” and “not part of” the hostilities, calling for de-escalation and protection of civilians, and stressing support was “not a blank cheque.”
- While one expert defended Carney’s more neutral stance, another expert argued he should not have softened his position, calling the regime a major human rights threat.
After initially declaring support for the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called for a de-escalation of conflict, and experts are divided on it.
Following the initial strike on Iran over the weekend, Carney and Minister of Foreign Affairs Anita Anand, declared support for the move.
“Canada’s position remains clear: the Islamic Republic of Iran is the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East, has one of the world’s worst human rights records, and must never be allowed to obtain or develop nuclear weapons,” they said in a joint statement.
“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.”
Read More
After the statement was released, some experts and local leaders pushed back against Carney’s comments, raising concerns about Canada siding with the U.S.
For instance, in a video posted on social media, Victoria MP Will Greaves called out Canada for not pushing for the protection of civilians in the region.
“Canada cannot endorse the unilateral and illegal use of military force, the killing of civilians or the kidnap and assassination of foreign heads of government while also insisting that our sovereignty, our rights and our independence must be respected,” he said.
Carney changes stance
Speaking with reporters on Tuesday, Carney dialed back his support for the attack, emphasizing that Canada was not consulted or had any active part on the move and calling for de-escalation of the conflict and protection for civilians in the region.
“Canada was not consulted on these hostilities. We’re not part of it. We’re taking things from the position that they are today with the actual end in terms of the desirability of eliminating that nuclear threat and the capacity to export state terror, that we support,” he said.
“We remind all belligerents of their responsibilities to protect civilians, to protect civilian infrastructure, not target civilian infrastructure. And we call for de-escalation of the conflict,” he added.
The prime minister also emphasized that Canada’s support was only in respect to keeping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but is “not a blank cheque” for future action.
“In that limited sense we supported that aspect. That is not a blank cheque. That is not us participating. That is not us asking for something in exchange for that [support]. That is just a straight up position.”
During his speech, Carney also said that Canada was taking a position of support for the attacks “with regret,” given that the United Nations and other international organizations were not consulted. However, the prime minister did not answer whether the move was a violation of international law.
“We do however take this position with regret because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order.”
Expert says Carney’s speech is “perfectly okay”
University of Toronto’s Political Science Professor Nelson Wiseman tells Now Toronto he believes the more neutral position adopted by Carney on Tuesday is “perfectly okay.”
According to him, although the prime minister condemned Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, remaining neutral keeps Canada from getting “on the wrong side” when it comes to the conflict.
“Why regret? Oh, because there had to be a military force to get rid of this government. So that’s their position. Because nobody wants to say, ‘Gee, we want to go to war,’” he said.
“You don’t want to get on the wrong side here…When he was asked last night, ‘Do you consider it a violation [of international law]’, he danced around his answer by saying, ‘Well, I’m not a lawyer. I’m not a legal expert. I’ll leave this to others to debate.’”
Wiseman also compared Carney’s position in relation to Iran to former prime minister Jean Chrétien in 2003 when American troops invaded Iraq. At the time Chrétien held back on sending Canadian troops, also citing lack of consultation with the UN.
Moving forward, the expert said he expects Canada to maintain neutrality.
“I think they’re just going to repeat what they’ve set up to now because they want to stay away from it and the issue and the reason is: it’s not a Canadian priority, and it really doesn’t make much difference what position Canada takes,” he added.
Expert shares mixed opinions
On the other hand, Professor of International Relations and Political Science at the University of Toronto, Aurel Braun, tells Now Toronto he believes Carney should not have dialed back the support.
Emphasizing the consequences of the Iranian regime to those living in the region, the professor explained that international law courts and the UN are not always effective when enforcing human rights.
“This is one of the most murderous regimes the planet has ever seen. This was led by Ali Khamenei and this group who claimed that the right to rule was because they represented the word of God…In over 47 years, they killed tens of thousands of their own people,” he explained.
“A nuclear arsenal would have allowed this Iranian regime, which has demonstrated absolutely no conscience, no restraint…There would be no way anyone could help the people of Iran.”
According to the professor, because of the veto power countries that are permanent members of the UN’s Security Council hold, it is very unlikely that the organization would take action when it comes to the situation in Iran.
For that reason, he says Carney’s appeal to resolving the situation with international law would be unrealistic and ineffective when it comes to helping the people in Iran.
“Carney makes the statement, and now it’s almost as if he says, ‘Oh, Gee, I regret that, My God, I was caught telling the truth. What kind of politician am I? I’m facing an election. I went to the campaign, I looked at the opinion poll that had that Canadians are not happy with this. Oh, okay, well, then let me go back and say, I’m saying this with regret,’” he said.
“If you’re going to say that you believe in human rights and deal with the world as it is, where the United Nations is absolutely impotent when it comes to protecting the security of countries, then you better find that balance.”
