Carney walked it back today:
In the Globe and Mail, Steven Chase writes Carney says Ottawa’s position supporting U.S., Israeli strikes on Iran was taken ‘with regret’:This actually sounds like Carney as opposed to the former statement which felt like government speak, but yeah could also be a bit of a back pedal!
— Patrisha/Pea/Pipi/Pia never Pat (@inkywinks.bsky.social) March 3, 2026 at 10:28 PM
....Prime Minister Mark Carney said he backed U.S. and Israeli air strikes on Iran “with regret” because, although he considers Tehran the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East, the military attacks are a failure of the rules-based order and appear to be a violation of international law.
Mr. Carney’s first comments since he issued a statement of support for the strikes Saturday amount to an effort to distance himself from the actions of U.S. President Donald Trump and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. He spoke to media in Sydney on Wednesday during a visit to Australia.
“We do, however, take this position with regret, because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order,” Mr. Carney said.
The attacks have caused, in the Prime Minister’s words, “a rapidly spreading conflict and growing threats to civilian life” in the region as Iran has retaliated by hitting back at Israel and nearby countries with U.S. military bases.
Mr. Carney said the pre-emptive attacks on Iran “prima facie, appear to be inconsistent with international law” and are more evidence of how the global system of treaties, laws and forms is dysfunctional. Mr. Carney has ruled out Canada’s involvement in the conflict.
He said it’s up to the United States and Israel to justify their pre-emptive strikes under international law and for legal experts to determine whether these actions meet the test. “That formal judgment is for others to make,” he said.
The current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order, he continued, adding that Canada was not consulted on the attacks by the United States or Israel. The comments carried echoes of his January speech to the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, where he said the rules-based international order was over and the most powerful pursue their interests.
“Despite decades of UN Security Council resolutions, the tireless work of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the succession of sanctions and diplomatic frameworks, Iran’s nuclear threat remains, and now the United States and Israel have acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada,” he said....
And Andrew Coyne notes the slapdash ineptitude of the Trump Administration that marked how this war started - Why even Iraq War Hawks should oppose this war:
...The reason why presidents are expected, if not required, to seek Congress’s approval before going to war – the reason they are encouraged, if not expected, to seek the approval of the Security Council – is not out of some bureaucratic concern that everyone fill out the proper forms.No reaction yet from Trump -- who has bigger problems right now. Then again, he erupted against Spain today when they said they wouldn't permit US aircraft to use their bases. So maybe Carney will be in Trump's crosshairs now too.
It is to force them to lay out their case – to show why war is necessary, why no less drastic intervention will suffice; and to show that they have a serious plan for winning it, including a plan for what comes after. Needless to say, the Trump administration has done none of these. It is not just a war of choice. It is a war of fancy, without the slightest grounding in law, or necessity, or reality.
Anyone with any sense of how the world works knows that war is sometimes necessary. But anyone with any sense of the awfulness of war – of its enormous toll, in lives and money; and of the enormous risks of unforeseen consequences – knows that the case for war must meet a very high bar. Otherwise we are at peril not only of one unnecessary war but, by normalizing such aggression, of others.
It is not for the Iranian regime’s sake that we insist on this – any more than the criminal law exists for the benefit of criminals. We “give the Devil the benefit of the law,” as in the famous phrase, for our own safety’s sake.
Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre is in England pretending to be a prime minister.
You know how in Canada he has often said bizarre stuff -- like about wood, and eating apples? Well, he's doing it again in England too - Robin Hood? Really? But not the "rob the rich and give to the poor" Robin I guess:
View on Threads
View on Threads
No comments:
Post a Comment