Prime Minister Mark Carney’s much criticized ambiguity about the role of international law regarding U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran is more than an excusable stumble by an inexperienced politician operating in a challenging environment.
Carney is building a foreign policy “doctrine” that increasingly warrants a closer look.
Last October, Carney lavished praise on U.S. President Donald Trump for supposedly “disabling Iran as a force of terror” with U.S. strikes months earlier. While the prime minister has softened — but not withdrawn — his support for the current military campaign that began in spite of progress on peace talks, he has not explained why he has long disagreed with intelligence assessments that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Nor has Carney or his ministers refused to rule out some form of participation in the conflict that is rapidly extending to other Persian Gulf states.
An opportunity to provide clarity on such issues was rebuffed when Carney skipped an emergency debate in Parliament on the growing crisis. Meanwhile, the war continues to unleash enormous human suffering and chaos.
“We take the world as it is” makes for powerful rhetoric, but is meaningless. There are many stories of how the world is, and all stories of how the world is are a matter of framing the facts. Allow someone to tell you their framing is the one truth, and you’ve submitted to uncritically accepting their theory of action.
Lmfao. No.
That’s fundamentally not how framing / lenses / perspectives work.
You don’t forget a lens or way of examining a situation, just because you learn a new one.
You’re misinterpreting my point. It’s not just allowing them to say it, but accepting it as the one truth. That’s what “the world as it is” rhetoric accomplishes.
But I’ll still ask, do you believe the Carney government is taking the world as it truly is, or is it telling one debatable story, among many viable stories of how the world is, for the purpose of shaping discourse towards political ends?
You can’t have it both ways.
If it’s just one story among many, then the “we take the world as it is” as the whole thesis of his speech is obviously problematic. You’ve got to get into the weeds of what “the world as it is” actually means to Carney and why it’s being framed that way, because it is a choice to frame it one way rather than another and choices reflect perceptions and priorities. All of that becomes highly debatable.
If someone buys into his framing of “how the world is” in some essentialist way, then they may as well be in a cult.
The world as it is, means that it’s more nuanced and subtle then just “do good = good outcome”, which is what you insist.
If your world view is just “every time you don’t go HAM calling out every injustice then you’re a bastard man”, then literally every politician ever, both past and future, will seem like a bastard man to you.
Carney’s literal entire epoint with “the world as it is”, is calling out naiive leftists who think that the road to heaven is paved only with good acts and the road to hell isn’t paved with good intentions.
That’s it? That’s your understanding of the “Carney Doctrine” as a foundation for Canada’s foreign policy?
Wow…
That is pretty, pretty shallow.
Also, I’ll point out that you’re misinterpreting and misrepresenting my position again, which is not “do good = good outcome” lol
I don’t even feel the need to comment on this further if you believe that’s the entire point. I’ll just let it stand that you believe it. Nothing really needs added beyond that, other than maybe to point out the humour in you referring to others as “naïve” while adopting a position that isn’t actually even getting into the details of foreign policy we see in practice because it’s so devoted to faith in the rhetoric of his speech.
Lmfao, you haven’t made a single cogent point.
Go ahead and try to explain precisely how Carney is not living up to his Davos speech. So far, all you’ve said is that he has made some Weasley worded political statements that look aimed to please both sides without saying anything. Congratulations. That’s politics.
Just try to explain what specific actions he’s taken that are not in line with his Davos speech. Be specific and don’t boil things down to a black and white analogy. We’ll wait.
Lol. You haven’t even shown that you understand the content of his speech. In fact, you’ve shown more that you don’t understand the content of his speech. If you did, you would have picked up on the specific elements of his speech that I referenced for criticism earlier, such as the criteria for “Living in Truth” instead of retreating into transactionalism.
Other people in this discussion have called Carney out on these failures too, including on Venezuela, Cuba, Qatar, and Iran, but you’ve stooped to insults or dismissal in response to them. I mean, we’re in a thread discussing a whole article about concerns on it, but you’re just burying your head in the sand of a poor understanding of a speech you don’t seem to have even read properly.
So, maybe you should first provide some actual substantial responses to the points already raised elsewhere in the conversation. If you’re going to ask someone to put in the work to rehash a whole bunch of arguments already provided that you’ve chosen just to ignore or dismiss, maybe you should first do the work of demonstrating that you even understand the substance of the doctrine. So far, you haven’t. You’re just defending the branding while ignoring the reality people like Axworthy have pointed out in the article and others are pointing out in the discussion.
You didn’t need to type that many words to say “I’m in capable of articulating a specific argument”.
Again, you’re speaking in broad generalities to make a point that doesn’t exist when you actually look att the specifics.
Name an action he has taken and the part of his speech that it’s violating. It’s not complicated. If the article can do it cogently and isn’t misrepresenting him and misconstruing the situation, it should be even easier for you.
You aren’t capable of responding with any substance to the many points already raised.
If you don’t want to be dismissed as a joke, show you have some substance behind your position by demonstrating an actual understanding of the doctrine and responding to what’s already in the discussion.
I doubt you will, because you’ve already shown you haven’t even done your homework on the topic. You’ll keep rolling with vibes as your level of understanding.
Prove me wrong.