Carney warned about the need for middle powers to work together for mutual protection in a global system where there are seemingly no constraints on the actions of great powers. He suggested they should build something bigger, better, stronger and more just together.
Why, then, did his government immediately support the illegal US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran just a month later?
…
Statements made on X (formerly Twitter) by the minister of foreign affairs, Anita Anand, about Iran, Ukraine and Lebanon over the past month suggest that Canada places more blame on Iran for the war than it does on the actual aggressors.
In addressing the source of the conflict, Anand’s statements have systematically erased the original act of US-Israeli aggression, focusing instead on Iran’s response, including its strikes on Gulf states and the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s actions are denounced as reprehensible, while US and Israeli attacks are “offensive operations”.
International law is invoked against Iran, but not against the aggressors. While Canada condemns Iranian attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure and the killing of their nationals, it does not do the same for US-Israeli attacks on Iranian infrastructure or civilians.
It was not Canada that started the war against Iran. The Middle East Eye might have confused this with Carney’s double standards regarding China’s forced labour.
Unfortunately there are plenty of double standards to point out. Canada has used soft language referring to the war Israel/US started and the article does a good job comparing it to Russia’s war with Ukraine.
Carney is learning in real time that principled governance is not easy. Especially when you see yourself and portray yourself as the pragmatist.
Great leaders find a way to blend principles (or at least the outward perception of being principled) with pragmatism. It seems like Carney wants to get there but still has a lot of work to do.
I’d argue that Justin was a great example of a prime minister that was principled but not pragmatic.
The point is Canada fell in line with supporting the war with almost no resistance or serious reflection over whether it is in Canada’s best interests not that Canada started the Iran War? That was clearly Israel and the US?
I feel this article a bit overblown, as it says,
Statements made on X (formerly Twitter) by the minister of foreign affairs, Anita Anand, about Iran, Ukraine and Lebanon over the past month suggest that Canada places more blame on Iran for the war than it does on the actual aggressors.
All the media outlet is citing are statements on Xitter by the minister, and from that they infer that “Canada’s double standards on Iran put the world at risk”. I don’t support the U.S. nor Israel, but if they don’t have more research than social media posts, this a bit clickbaity imho.
This article is about Canadian leaders and what they say, that is why X is referenced.
Social media posts are how politicians state their intentions?
This article is not overblown, it is the same criticism that can be levelled at many countries it is just Carney made a really good speech arguing not to do this shit not too long ago so yeah… the international community is going to comment on the hypocrisy.
Where did I or this article claim ALL Canadians think this? We are talking about your leaders.
Wher did I or this article claim ALL Canadians think tbis? We are talking about your leaders.
I didn’t say that. You may have misunderstood my comment. At least it’s not what I meant.
The only thing I say is that - at least from my point of view - social media posts are not enough to come up with such a headline, especially as Carney has shown much more double standards these days by defending his MP Michael Ma’s approach regarding Chinese forced labour (and even hailing Ma for his political views as I have read).
Check both links here: https://lemmy.ca/comment/22550857
