Embattled Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Photo Credit: CBC

In a span of just a few short weeks, Stephen Harper and his minority Conservative government have demonstrated a near total lack of credibility on two important issues which have dominated Canadian news – their stance on the environment and their knowledge and involvement in the alleged torture of detainees in Afghanistan.

The two issues are not by themselves connected, but they have managed to induce Mr. Harper and his government to deal with them in a strikingly similar fashion; that is, they first vehemently deny that any such issues exist, then they categorically refute that they have played any role in creating or contributing to the existence of these issues, and finally they attempt to downplay any legitimacy of the criticisms cast against them for their inability to deal forthrightly with the repercussions of their actions and or inactions once the issues and the government’s complicity with them have been exposed.

Despite not having achieved any success in deflecting either public interest or scorn regarding their incredibly poor handling of these issues, Mr. Harper and his Conservative caucus are showing no likelihood of straying off script as the political pressure mounts for what are becoming two very serious problems for them.

Though Harper is not a climate change denier, he has demonstrated remarkably little leadership on the issue of how to deal with it, presumably because he does not believe that any restructuring of the economy to protect the environment makes sound business sense. In other words, he is more concerned with the status quo of industrial pollution as it relates to profit than he is about recognizing the necessity to meet the challenge of climate change from an ecological rather than an economic position.

Harper has unabashedly used this mindset to justify his decision to pull Canada out of the Kyoto Accord, a move which has garnered enormous skepticism regarding his government’s commitment to any substantial environmental reform.

At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in December 2009, the Canadian Prime Minister was the subject of high level appeals by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, who was himself a special invitee to the meeting in advance of the UN sponsored Copenhagen summit that was to follow.

Ban and others were deeply concerned about the influence Canada’s environmental outlook might have among both developed and developing nations, and the effect it might have on whether it was possible to achieve consensus on reaching a substantial agreement in Copenhagen.

“Many countries, developed and developing countries, have come out with ambitious targets,” Ban said. “And Canada, as one of the leading G8 countries, and G20, Canada is going to soon chair G8. Therefore, it is only natural that Canada should come out with ambitious mid-term targets as soon as possible.”

The environmental image Mr. Harper is casting.
Photo Credit: One Blue Marble

Mr. Harper attempted to deflect some of the criticism he faced at the summit by offering a new target for Canadian emissions and pledging to honor them, saying “It’s important that whatever targets we set be realistic, achievable and are actually achieved. We have been through the exercise in the past decade or so of setting targets that are idealistic or blue sky, or set targets that look great on paper but didn’t actually require any effort. More modest, achievable targets in the short term will get the planet on the right track.”

This highlights a troubling inconsistency in Harper’s logic.

His plan calls for a 20 percent reduction in current emission levels by the year 2020, which is virtually indistinguishable from what American President Barack Obama is widely expected to announce for the United States during his appearance in Copenhagen.

The Kyoto Accord called for a 6% cut in 1997 emission levels by the year 2012, yet Canada is currently producing emissions that are 30% higher than levels measured when Kyoto was signed by then Prime Minister Jean Chretien, thanks in no small part to Harper’s refusal to honor it.

The reality is that for all the bravado, Mr. Harper’s new target will actually be reducing emissions to a lesser degree than what was called for by the Kyoto Protocol, and only reinforces the growing belief that this government is not interested in taking a leadership role on environmental responsibility, but rather prefers to follow behind the U.S. and its disturbing trend of allowing corporate interests to set the environmental agenda.

When it comes to the allegations of abuse of Afghan detainees however, Mr. Harper has no one to shield him from the potential firestorm his government is sure to face in the new year regarding this issue.

For many Canadians, the war in Afghanistan has been a contentious issue from the beginning of the conflict. Our soldiers have been fighting and dying there since November 2001. It was only recently that Prime Minister Harper affirmed that Canada’s military obligation to Afghanistan would end in 2011, thus fulfilling a ten year commitment, longer than any other military operation in Canadian history.

Yet by and large, Canadians have supported their military throughout the war, in large measure because of the outstanding performance they have managed in spite of the tremendous, some would say insurmountable, obstacles to success in securing a largely lawless and often ruggedly impassable terrain from the control of Islamic fundamentalists.

Prime Minister Harper and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Photo Credit: The Embassy of Afghanistan

Those who have never supported the ‘mission,’ have nonetheless expressed their admiration for the role our military has played, no matter how impossible or thankless the tasks set before them.

Unlike their American counterparts in Iraq, our forces were not engaged in dubious practices that skirted international law and risked their nation’s reputation as a country that adhered to a strict moral code.

There was no shadow foreign policy or covert abuse such as Abu Ghraib which would tarnish our military’s identity to further a political agenda.

Or so Canadians were led to believe.

The explosive allegations made by career diplomat Richard Colvin regarding the handover of Afghan detainees by the Canadian military has seriously challenged Mr. Harper’s government to validate their repeated claims that our forces have consistently conducted themselves within the framework of international law.

Appearing before a special session of the House of Commons Committee, Colvin asserted that all detainees handed over by Canadian forces to Afghan officials were abused, and many of them were innocent victims of a policy which circumvented Canada’s adherence to international treaties regarding torture.

Colvin was working for the Department of Foreign Affairs in Kandahar in 2006, and later in Kabul as second in command at the Canadian Embassy, where in both capacities he visited detainees and wrote reports on their treatment which he relayed to Ottawa.

“As I learned more about our detainee practices, I came to a conclusion they were contrary to Canada’s values, contrary to Canada’s interests, contrary to Canada’s official policies and also contrary to international law. That is, they were un-Canadian, counterproductive and probably illegal,” said Colvin during his testimony.

These allegations seriously challenge Harper’s numerous declarations that Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan has fully complied with our international commitments to law and order.

What is even more disturbing, though likely not surprising given the magnitude of the charges, is how the Harper government has chosen to deal with Colvin.

Initially, they attempted to portray him as a malcontent, someone with an axe to grind against the Conservative government, and who chose this outrageous means of showing them up as a pathetic attempt to thrust himself into the limelight at the expense of Canada’s military reputation.

When their libelous efforts to slander Mr. Colvin utterly failed to diminish the growing controversy, the government then tried to ignore the issue entirely, which did nothing but create even more interest in what they claimed were unfounded accusations in a trivial matter, stirring the opposition parties to call for an independent inquiry and raising troubling questions about the government’s veracity.

Harper’s failure to appear credible in response to these allegations has highlighted what seems to be a protracted campaign of deflection, distraction, diminishment and denial that has served to intensify the spotlight on this issue, and given his critics ample ammunition to poke holes in his amateurishly implausible explanations for what has occurred.

With so much at stake with Canada’s reputation regarding both these issues, it will be interesting to see how Mr. Harper and his government will deal with them in the new year.

Judging by the track record, it would be hard to imagine that they could do much worse than they have thus far.

Related posts:

1. A Strong Stance on Climate Change in Copenhagen Could Lead Stephen Harper to a Majority The Copenhagen summit is a hot topic for conversation. Recent...
2. How Much Accountability is Necessary and Do Canadians Care About the Afghan Torture Story? In my honest opinion, this constant reframing of the governments...
3. Stephen Harper Declines the Opportunity for Canadian Leadership on Climate Change at the Commonwealth Summit At the recently concluded Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM)...
4. Stephen Harper and Conservative Action on Climate Change: Are You Getting What You’re Voting For? Stephen Harper and the Conservatives enjoy decent support in the...
5. How Stephen Harper & Jim Prentice Left the Climate Summit in Copenhagen With George Orwell’s 1984 Terminology from George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 often gets thrown...

Tags: afghan torture, Canadian Armed Forces, climate change, copenhagen, Environment

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 16th, 2009 at 8:29 pm and is filed under Canadian Armed Forces, Environment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.