Harper vs. Hutchison
Yesterday the Canadian House of Commons, in a motion proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, debated whether or not to join the war on Iraq. The final vote was 153 to 50 against participation. The following is Stephen Harper's speech to the House during this debate, and an email I wrote to him in reply to it.Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak to a matter of the gravest importance that Parliament can address: the matter of war and specifically the resumption of war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.
We appreciate that our colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois have brought this motion forward today. It is appropriate for two reasons. The first is that it is not from the government, which has consistently acted without vision and values during this crisis, and even today I understand resists a timely vote on these matters.
It is also fitting that this historic motion, which calls on us to abandon our closest friends and allies at this critical time, comes from the Bloc Quebecois, a party that does have values and visions but whose values are different than the traditions that built this country and whose vision is a country where our country as we know it would not continue to exist.
Let us review how we came to this crossroads internationally. In 1991, after the invasion of Kuwait, the world judged the Iraqi regime to be a dangerous aggressor. In the interests of world peace and regional security, the community of nations expelled Iraq from Kuwait; required Iraq to surrender its offensive arsenal, its chemical and biological weapons; and to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Iraq agreed to comply with these demands as an enormous and victorious force of allied troops and personnel, not just American and British, but Canadians as well stood ready to invade.
We have waited 12 years for Saddam Hussein to give action to those commitments. With the threat of renewed action from the U.S., the U.K. and others, on November 8, 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1441. It was the 17th Security Council resolution regarding the threat Iraq posed to international peace and security. The resolution, which was adopted unanimously, gave Iraq a final opportunity to demonstrate immediate compliance with its disarmament obligations and it promised serious consequences otherwise.
Over the last four months we have seen no evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein will willingly comply with resolution 1441.
Iraq's continued defiance of the community of nations presents a challenge which must be addressed. It is inherently dangerous to allow a country such as Iraq to retain weapons of mass destruction, particularly in light of its past aggressive behaviour. If the world community fails to disarm Iraq we fear that other rogue states will be encouraged to believe that they too can have these most deadly of weapons to systematically defy international resolutions and that the world will do nothing to stop them. As the possession of weapons of mass destruction spreads, the danger of such weapons coming into the hands of terrorist groups will multiply, particularly given in this case the shameless association of Iraq with rogue non-state organizations.
That is the ultimate nightmare which the world must take decisive and effective steps to prevent. Possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons by terrorists would constitute a direct, undeniable and lethal threat to the world, including to Canada and its people. As we learned, or should have learned on September 11, having no malice toward these groups will not absolve the citizens of any country from the hatred they direct toward us and toward our civilization.
The principal objective is the disarmament of Iraq but it has now become apparent that that objective is inseparable from the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. Earlier this week President Bush requested the support of his key allies in the participation of a coalition of nations who would be prepared to enforce Security Council resolutions by all necessary means. That same day, the allies delivered an ultimatum to the Iraqi leadership: Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours or face military conflict.
These allies did not seek a military conflict today any more than they sought it 12 years ago. The world has tried other means for years, but to no avail. We cannot walk away from the threat that Iraq's continued possession of weapons of mass destruction constitutes to its region and to the wider world.
In the final analysis, disarming Iraq is necessary for the long term security of the world, to the collective interests of our historic allies and therefore, manifestly, it is in the national interest of this country.
I want to briefly address some of the counter-arguments to this position in support of the coalition of the willing led by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair.
First, this coalition lacks the legal authority to act. Existing United Nations Security Council resolutions have long provided for the use of force to disarm Iraq and restore international peace and security to the area. Security Council resolution 678 adopted in 1990 authorized the use of all necessary means, not only to implement resolution 660 demanding Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, but also to implement all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security to the area.
Resolution 687, which provided the ceasefire terms for Iraq in 1991, a ceasefire not an armistice, affirmed resolution 678. Resolution 1441 itself confirmed that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, a point on which there is unanimous international agreement.
Iraq's past and continuing breaches of the ceasefire obligations now negate the basis for the formal ceasefire. Iraq has, by its conduct, demonstrated that it did not and does not accept the terms of the ceasefire. Consequently, authorization for the use of force in Security Council resolution 678 has been reactivated.
I would point out that this view of international law is not new. In fact, our own Canadian deployment of troops to the gulf in 1998 in Operation Desert Fox, strongly supported at the time by the current Prime Minister, was undertaken on the same legal basis. The Clinton administration clearly understood and argued, as the Bush administration does now, that existing Security Council resolutions clearly allow for the use of military force.
Another objection is that we need only more time, that the inspection process is working and that diplomacy should be given another chance. Let me address this. The inspections process has been a failure. It has not resulted in disarmament. However, more important, the inspections process is not intended to force or compel disarmament. It is only intended to monitor compliance. To the extent that Saddam Hussein has complied, it has only been through the constant threat of force. Force has been the only language that Saddam Hussein's regime has ever understood. Yet even the threat of force has only convinced Saddam Hussein to engage reluctantly in the token, piecemeal destruction of weapons, and only the most reluctant revelations of the existence of weapons and weapons programs.
Even with over 200,000 coalition troops massed at his borders, he quibbles about how interviews are to be conducted with his scientists and how many of the reconnaissance aircraft supporting the inspectors can fly at one time. He simply plays a game of cat and mouse, and he will play it indefinitely. After 12 years he does not believe that the international community has the will to act. He clearly believes that ongoing diplomacy will ultimately be hijacked by those who simply want to delay and who ultimately want inaction.
In recent months this party, the Canadian Alliance, has been strongly supportive of these diplomatic efforts. However it is clear now that in some cases Saddam Hussein has guessed right. For example, Jacques Chirac and the Gaullists of France have once again been preoccupied more with agendas targeted on the Anglo-American word than on the regime of Saddam Hussein. In other cases, however, Saddam Hussein has clearly made an error in judgment, a final misjudgement. He underestimated our American and British allies and their many friends around the world.
That leads to a final criticism, that the coalition is somehow inadequate because it is not unanimous and because it is led by the United States of America. Ironically, as even our Liberal government has acknowledge, America, with Britain in particular, has given strong leadership to the world on the issue of Iraq. What has been accomplished in recent months has only been accomplished solely because of the American-British coalition and their allies and their determination to act. Indeed, without strong leadership of leading powers, usually the U.S.A., the failures of the United Nations are too numerous and too grisly to even mention.
We in the Canadian Alliance support the American position today on this issue because we share their concerns and their worries about the future of the world if Iraq is left unattended. Alliances are a two way process. Where we are in agreement we should not leave it to the United States to do all the heavy lifting just because it is the world's only superpower. To do so I believe will inevitably undermine one of the most important relationships that we have. In an increasingly globalized and borderless world, the relationship between Canada and the United States is essential to our prosperity, to our democracy and to our future.
The coalition assembled by the United States and the United Kingdom is now ready to act. It is now acting. It will bring this long run conflict to an end once and for all. It will bring to an end the regime of Saddam Hussein and the militarism, brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his rule. Since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979 more than one million have died as a consequence. They have died through killing and torture as individual opponents, real and imagined. They have died from acts of civil war and mass genocide in the north and south of the country. They have died in invasions launched against his neighbours. Now his final bloody chapter is being read. As it is being written make no mistake, this party will not be with Saddam Hussein. We will not be neutral. We will be with our allies and our friends, not militarily, but in spirit we will be with them in America and in Britain for a short and successful conflict and for the liberation of the people of Iraq.
We will not be with our government. For this government, in taking the position it has taken, has betrayed Canada's history and its values. Reading only the polls and indulging in juvenile and insecure anti-Americanism, the government has, for the first time in our history, left us outside our British and American allies in their time of need. It has done worse. It has left us standing for nothing, no realistic alternative, no point of principle and no vision of the future. It has left us standing with no one. Our government is not part of the multilateral coalition in support of this action and it has not been part of any coalition opposing it; just alone, playing irrelevant and contradictory games on both sides of the fence to the point where we go so far as to leave military personnel in the region without the access support and moral support of the government that sent them there.
This is not an act of independence. In fact, as we find ourselves isolated from our allies, we find ourselves under the government more dependent on them than ever before, economically, culturally and of course militarily.
My great fear: A country that does not embrace its own friends and allies in a dangerous world but thinks it can use them and reject them at will. Such a country will in time endanger its own existence. However to have the future once again of a great country, we must do more than stand with our friends in the United States. We must rediscover our own values. We must remember that this country was forged in large part by war, terrible war, but not because it was terrible and not because it was easy, but because at the time it was right.
In the great wars of the last century against authoritarianism, against fascism, against communism, Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, we more often than not led the way. We did so for freedom; we did so for democracy; we did so for the values of civilization itself, values which continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders and are represented in their polar offices, embodied and personified by Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of 9-11.
So we will not merely vote against this motion today, we will tell the Americans and we will tell the British we are with you.
We will of course pray for the innocent people of Iraq and hope that they may have a better future than the one they have had under this tyrannical regime and we will wish that they may have a future where they have the democratic freedoms that we enjoy, that every man and every woman, especially at this time in the Islamic world, is entitled to in every part of this earth.
We will stand, and I believe most Canadians will quietly stand with us, for these higher values which shaped our past and which we will need in an uncertain future.
Mr. Speaker, in the days that follow, may God guide the actions of the President of the United States and the American people; may God save the Queen, her prime minister and all her subjects; and may God continue to bless Canada.
-Stephen Harper, Honourable Leader of the Opposition
Dear Mr. Harper,
It was with great interest that I read your recent speech with regards to Iraq.
It is most unfortunate that this debate has been so tinged with emotional
extremism; anti-American invective on one hand, and romantic oversimplification
on the other. I must respectfully assert that many of the statements in your
speech are half-truths, and fall into the latter category. Though the notion
that a citizen could communicate with a political leader and have an exchange
of ideas beyond platitudes and bulk mail probably died with the coming of the
marketing-ized "new politics," I will engage in this little exercise if only
for my own interest. I do hope that you would read this through and consider a
few things that I suggest, though I am cynical and do not expect much from our
political system.
"We appreciate that our colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois..."
This does remind one that the vast majority of Quebecois are opposed to war on
Iraq, and that a decision to go to war on Iraq could at worst provoke a
national unity crisis, and at best give the separatists a strong weapon.
Mackenzie King, who valued Canadian autonomy and national unity above all else,
had a policy of never moving forward on a major decision without the agreement
or acquiescence of all regional groups within Canada. By that same account, the
federal government should not have moved ahead on Kyoto, as Alberta was not in
agreement. Such a policy spared Canada much national unity grief, and it is
little wonder that Jack Granatstein has proclaimed King's performance as Prime
Minister to be as close to perfection as possible.
"We have waited 12 years for Saddam Hussein...Iraq's continued defiance of the
community of nations presents a challenge which must be addressed."
Iraq has defied 17 resolutions, and that is certainly terrible. However, many
nations have defied resolutions and not received retribution. I am not anti-
Israeli (the Israel-Palestine conflict is one that yields little interest for
me), but the fact is that Israel has defied 31 resolutions. It would seem,
then, that military actions should not be taken unless the regime in question
constitutes an immediate threat to world security. Considering that Iraq has
not attempted to invade other nations in 12 years, and that allied intelligence
reports have been contradicted by weapons inspectors and, in some cases,
discredited entirely (as in the graduate student paper, and the refined uranium
purchases which were shown to be fabricated), and given that the current crisis
was allowed to drag on as long as it did, all seem to suggest that Iraq is not
an immediate threat to world security. Such an argument is further supported by
the fact that much of the evidence that the allies have presented, according to
intelligence experts like Janice Stein, has been old; if the evidence is old,
how then is Iraq suddenly a greater danger in 2003? If Iraq has not attacked
another country in 12 years and intelligence reports to verify its weapons
productions have proved dubious at best, then how can it be said that Iraq is
an immediate threat?
"The inspections process has been a failure. It has not resulted in
disarmament."
This is an oversimplification of the type one might expect from a character
like David Frum. According to American intelligence sources, during the period
of 1991-98, UN Inspectors successfully disarmed 95% of Iraq's destructive
capability. Weapons inspectors were able to report not insignificant progress
during their inspection process. In Hans Blix's finally report to the UN,
largely drowned out by the drums of war, the chief inspector stated that he
could have declared Iraq to be officially disarmed in just a few more weeks.
Weapons inspections showed their merit very clearly from 91-98, and were
getting results in 2003. To so contemptuously dismiss the work of the weapons
inspectors is a disservice.
"Jacques Chirac and the Gaullists of France have once again been preoccupied
more with agendas targeted on the Anglo-American word than on the regime of
Saddam Hussein."
This is perhaps the greatest misrepresentation of all - the notion that the
only thing standing between the allies and war against Hussein was but a small
group of aristocratic, anti-American Frenchmen. The fact of the matter is that,
no matter how little proponents of the war like to admit it, the weight of
world opinion is against the war on Iraq - it is the majority of all people,
not just a few Frenchmen. Among those nations whose populace is by a majority
opposed to war are Great Britain, Mexico, virtually all Western European
countries and, yes, Canada. No matter how you frame it, a majority of Canadians
are not interesting in fighting in a war on Iraq. It then seems quite
disingenuous to accuse the United Nations of being "irrelevant" for asserting,
as it was designed to do, the weight of world opinion. I dislike the idea of a
world in which the United Nations is a Canadian Senate, existing merely to
rubber stamp policies with which world opinion does not agree.
"Indeed, without strong leadership of leading powers, usually the U.S.A., the
failures of the United Nations are too numerous and too grisly to even mention."
This is another very gross misrepresentation of the facts. Certainly the UN has
let some very unfortunate events slip through its grasp - but it can safely be
said, without being anti-American, that the role of the United States'
leadership has not always been as righteous as this line would suggest. In the
Rwandan crisis, for example, the United States worked to obfuscate attempts to
intervene; considering that President Clinton publicly apologized to the people
of Rwanda for the United States' role in the affair, to refute this statement
seems rather futile. A similar event occurred during the East Timorese Crisis
of 1978; Daniel Patrick Moynihan would later boast in his biography about his
ability to render the UN impotent. There are other examples, but I do not wish
to embark on some sort of anti-American rant. Suffice it to say that the US has
not always been the most faithful defender of collective security. Also, the UN
has become considerably better at enforcing collective security since the end
of the Cold War, embarking on over twice as many peacekeeping missions during
the period of 1991-2001 than it did during the period of 1946-1991.
"Since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979 more than one million have died as
a consequence...They have died in invasions launched against his neighbours..."
You fail to mention, of course, that Saddam Hussein came to power with the aid
of the CIA. Moreover, in the Iran-Iraq War, to which you allude, Iraq was
supported by the Western powers, including both the United States and France.
It seems somewhat inconsistent to support a war, and later claim it to be an
atrocity.
"Reading only the polls..."
In his very interesting book Think Big, Preston Manning spoke at great length
of the importance of being a true delegate by representing the wishes of one's
constituents. He even went so far as to argue that, though he personally was
never put in such a position, a member of parliament should argue his
constituents' position even if that position is not the same as his own. It
seems odd, then, that when Jean Chretien chooses to represent the wishes of a
significant majority of Canadians, the Canadian Alliance, the supposed
champions of direct democracy, reacts so derisively. When Preston Manning
fulfils the wishes of his constituents he is a hero; when Jean Chretien does
it, he is an unprincipled coward. I do not understand this apparent
inconsistency in Alliance policy. I do seem to recall that in an article you co-
authored with Tom Flanagan, which I read in After Liberalism, you criticized
Manning's delegational democracy as "Bonapartism." In all frankness, the idea
that the majority opinion of the Canadian people should overridden by their
government seems very elitist to me and, moreover, the sort of thing that I
would have expected the Canadian Alliance to denounce.
"...the government has, for the first time in our history, left us outside our
British and American allies in their time of need."
This is untrue. Canada did not support the United States in Vietnam as you
know, though I'd be interested to hear if you would question that decision - I
suspect that most in both Canada and the US would agree that avoiding Vietnam
was probably a good thing. In 1922 Canada refused to offer any assistance to
Britain in the Chanak Crisis, despite pledges of support by Australia and New
Zealand - a decision that most historians have since vindicated as the correct
one. Canada's response to the Suez Crisis of 1956 was at the time seen as a
shameless abandonment of Great Britain; today it is regarded as one of Canada's
finest achievements. Canada has in the past refused to act in accord with the
US and Britain and, at least in the examples I cited, the end result was better
for it.
"Our government is not part of the multilateral coalition in support of this
action and it has not been part of any coalition opposing it."
This would seem to be in Canada's best interest; if we are to oppose the war,
it makes sense that we should do so quietly and respectfully, forsaking the
anti-American bombast of France of Germany.
"Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, we more often than not led the
way."
I'm sad to say that this statement seems to be an exaggeration. Especially in
the Cold War period, Canada followed a lot of orders and, through not much
fault of her own, does not seem to have had much influence, and the world was
usually the worse for it. An example I can think of is the Korean War, which
the Canadian government opposed; however, when the US insisted, Canada did
follow. Our advice was largely ignored, and with disastrous consequences.
Lester Pearson warned the allied commanders that advancing beyond the North
Korea-South Korea border would provoke a declaration of war by China and
escalate the aggression; I need not mention that Pearson was precisely correct.
In the end over 300 Canadians died fighting a war with which their government
didn't really agree, and fought on a scale that, had their government been
listened to, would have been much smaller. As defense spending accounted for
40% of Canada's budget during this period, it seems somewhat unrealistic to
assume that Canada's lack of influence during the Korean War was due a weak
military. I think the Korean example largely debunks the notion that a larger
military would buy Canada more influence in Washington but, then, I'm sure you
would disagree with that.
"We must rediscover our own values."
I should hope that this is not intended as a finger-wagging at the Canadian
public for not agreeing with the war on Iraq. Suffice is to say that whatever
Canadian values were once is a matter of much historical debate, and that
Canada's values in the future will continue to be shaped by largely ephemeral
forces; it seems rather self-defeating to attempt to change the values of a
nation or, as "rediscover" would suggest, turn back time.
I would finally like to address the so-called "liberal argument" for war on
Iraq: that war is necessary to "liberate" the Iraqi people. I am somewhat
caustic of this argument, as it has innate and immovable double standards. Yes,
Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant. There are, however, many such tyrants in the
world in which we live. Countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are controlled
by autocratic, regressive, and often brutal regimes; Yemen is acknowledged by
the United States as a state which contributes to terrorism; and China's human
rights violations, against both Tibet and Mainland dissidents, are unspeakable.
All of these are terrible governments who oppress their people; Pakistanis,
Saudi Arabians, Yemenis, and Chinese are surely no less deserving of democracy
than Iraqis. The problem with the "liberation doctrine" is that to apply it
fairly would mean a century of warfare - it therefore can only be applied
selectively. I believe that the creation of democracy is best facilitated from
the bottom-up, not from the top-down. Indeed, the last 10 years have seen the
creation of more democracies than in any time in history, usually without the
need for a war. Democracies can be created peacefully by nations without the
need for foreign imposition.
If you've actually read this far into this admittedly long-winded email, I am
surely impressed. The point of this communication is to show the apparent
leader of the pro-war side in Canada that the argument against war is logical,
moral, widespread and, if not convincing your agreement, then at least
deserving of your respect. It has also, perhaps, been an excuse for me to extol
rather boringly upon a subject of intense interest to me. Democracy yet lives
in Canada.
To sum, my arguments are as follows:
-Canada's national unity is imperiled by a pro-war decision due to fierce
opposition in Quebec.
-That Iraq's defiance of UN resolutions is certainly a bad thing, but military
action should only be taken against a country that is clearly an immediate
threat to world peace. Given Iraq's lack of action over the last 12 years, and
given the questionable nature and oldness of allied intelligence reports, such
a categorization seems untenable.
-Reports by UN weapons inspectors suggest that inspections were making
progress, and reports by American intelligence officials from the period of 91-
98 prove that inspections can work. Speeches in which politicians refute the
claims of weapons inspectors and don't bother to cite their sources fail to
sway my belief in the inspections process.
-It is not just the French aristocrats who oppose war; the majority of world
opinion, including in countries like the UK, Mexico, Western European nations,
and Canada, are opposed to war. The Toronto Star's conclusion that "we are in
good company" seems quite accurate.
-The presumption that the UN only does good things under the leadership of the
United States is not supported by fact.
-We in the West should accept the role we played in Hussein's assent if we are
to prevent such an error from occurring again.
-The Canadian people are against participating in this war, and to suggest that
their opinion should be overridden as wrong by a government that somehow knows
better is elitist.
-Canada has not always acted in accord in the US and UK, and on such occasions
things seemed to turn out fairly well for Canada.
-If Canada is not to join a war on Iraq, it should do so quietly and
respectfully. The notion that Canada has to be either pro-war or adopt a French-
German anti-American stance is an over implication.
-The "Liberal doctrine" of regime change can never be applied equally;
democracy has proven itself perfectly able to develop, in time, from the bottom-
up without foreign interference.
The final note in your speech I must contend is "I believe most Canadians will
quietly stand with us." This is not reflected whatsoever in any public opinion
testing. Members of the conservative press, certain provincial premiers, and
people like David Frum, will surely stand with you, though quite loudly, I'm
sure. The majority of the Canadian people will stand with the government's
position, while many others will stand outside, in rain or shine, to protest a
war that they view as unnecessary.
Anyway, thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Stephen Hutchison
Current Mood: upset ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
huts's journal
tired
pleased
pissed off