harper better look out for canada's interests

Bush's new security strategy spells trouble for Canada in the future
John Gray, CBC News Online, March 22, 2006

Now safely back in Canada from his brief visit to Afghanistan, Stephen Harper may pause to consider the nature of the country to which he has committed the lives of young Canadian soldiers. To say the least, it is not very Canadian. ...

There is, for example, the case of Abdul Rahman, an Afghan who went to Pakistan to work for a Christian aid agency and ended up converting to Christianity. He returned to Afghanistan and was arrested and put on trial for converting. For that crime he could be executed.

The Rahman case does not directly affect Canada except that Canadians are expected to undertake the broad responsibility for helping to rebuild the physical and social infrastructure of Afghanistan. That means everything from laws to schools, and, while they are at it, protecting the Afghans and themselves from a continuing civil war.

So Abdul Rahman is the kind of problem Canadian troops must worry about. What do you do about a society where people think it's quite all right to execute someone because he changes his religion?

What must concern Prime Minister Harper more than the case of Rahman or the immediate peril of Canadian troops is the realization that Canada did not have much to say about how its troops got there in the first place or what they are doing.

In pursuit of Osama bin Laden after the terrorist attacks on the United States in 2003, the Americans crashed into Afghanistan, discovered a country that was one of the least developed in the world, and summoned its NATO allies to pick up the pieces while they turned their attention to Iraq.

More trouble coming?

In the months after the U.S. attack on Afghanistan in late 2001, the Bush administration published a 33-page document entitled The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The essence of that strategy was that the U.S. would launch pre-emptive military action against any state seeking weapons of mass destruction. The American target was Iraq and its ruthless ruler, Saddam Hussein.

The world knows only too well what followed six months later. The Americans invaded Iraq and blew that already hellish society into a chaotic civil war. The American death toll is more than 2,300; the Iraqi toll is many, many times higher than that.

What is depressing is that the Bush government has now published a new version of its national security strategy and this time its explicit target is Iran and its nuclear development – whether it be for peaceful energy or military aggression.

Bush writes that "we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize." Diplomatic efforts must be made to halt Iran's suspected nuclear weapons work, and that diplomacy must succeed "if confrontation is to be avoided."

After Iraq, more of the same?

Back in Ottawa, Prime Minister Harper would be well advised to take a good look at George W. Bush's second security strategy because it spells trouble in the future.

Three years ago, in the months leading up to the Iraq war, the world saw the extraordinary spectacle of a superpower determined to go to war against a much, much smaller state. From U.S. and British sources it is now clear that the United States and Britain knew or should have suspected there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found, but were determined to go to war.

Even the respected U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, allowed his own good name to be sacrificed in a spurious cause. The result now is that the U.S. may be right about Iran and its intentions, but whatever the Bush administration says will be greeted with profound skepticism.

What Canada does not know is how Harper will react if George Bush comes calling and asking for Canadian troops to serve in Iran. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, Harper thought Canada should say "ready, aye, ready" to the American call. He thought better of it when he saw how profoundly unpopular that war is.

When he was in Afghanistan, Harper looked and sounded like a man who was keen. For the troops who are, as he says, in harm's way, the prime minister was very rah-rah. That was fine, but being encouraging to troops is not a substitute for foreign policy.

The test of Harper's resolve and understanding may come within days, when he has his first meeting with George W. Bush. It would be surprising if the president did not try to sign up the rookie from the Great White North for his Iran adventure.

For Harper this must be a time of caution. He arrived in office without a visible foreign policy and that did not change just because the troops in Afghanistan cheered for him.

The example of Afghanistan is bad enough – a commitment without apparent end, and many deaths to come. The harsher reality is the disaster that is Iraq and George W. Bush's renewed commitment to do what he thinks is best for the United States, whatever anyone else may say.