The courage to criticize

Why Canada should stand up for itself

Thomas Baker

There has been a major backlash regarding a leaked Canadian foreign policy training document that named countries that practice torture. Most notably named were Russia, China, Israel, and the United States. Specifically, it was the United States and Israel that were outraged at the very thought that Canadians would make up such heinous lies about their treatment of prisoners.

Both countries have condemned the release and demanded action. All of this is fine, as I have no problem with a document existing in Canada that “names names” of those who use torture to further their causes. I also do not have a problem with any country releasing statements denouncing the document as lies and obscene propaganda. After all, no self-respecting country that has signed the Geneva Conventions could ever leave such allegations unchallenged. I do, however, have a problem with the Canadian government crumbling instantly to international diplomacy and having the book rewritten under the pressure of mere words from these countries.

The actions of the United States and Israel are justified, if not just towards the training manual but maybe also towards the torture. After all, who are we to judge the actions of a state involved in a conflict that we ourselves deemed to be too costly to become involved in? Especially when you consider that the opposing combatants do not prescribe to the ideals of fair combat and use the restrictions set on their enemy to their advantage. Sure, the argument could be made of inhuman treatment, and “being the bigger nation,” but at the end of the day, we are gratefully not in their shoes and we don’t know the whole story.

With that being said, I would not even attempt to make arguments to justify either countries reasons for being in their respective conflicts. But both countries are plagued with problems now: the United States in Iraq and Israel with the Palestinians. But the point remains: why do these countries deny their use of torture at all? Perhaps the United States and Israel should use Russia and China as examples, as neither of those countries denies the use of torture, nor do they shy away from being accountable for what they feel needs to get done.

Whether the United States or Israel are willing to admit to their use of torture, justified or not, is a question that will not be answered anytime soon. The issue here is that the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier came under pressure by both countries, folded like a cheap tent, and ordered the document reviewed and rewritten. This demonstrates not only gross incompetence but also cowardice uncharacteristic of a Canadian. Who are we as a nation to criticize the actions of our closest allies in private if we don’t have the courage to do it in public?

Perhaps the United States and Israel should use Russia and China as examples, as neither of those countries deny the use of torture, nor do they shy away from being accountable for what they feel needs to get done.

Rather than stepping away from the conflict, Bernier should have stood up and stated that Canada as a nation rejects the use of torture and will continue to warn our citizens of its danger. After all, the document in question is an internal training manual, meant to inform diplomats of potential threats in the countries they may serve in, and it should not be subject to public or international scrutiny. Also, the document shouldn’t be subject to political rhetoric or international ass-kissing, because it must contain the best information available about what is actually going on in the world.

Why do Canadian troops wear infrared-red tape on their helmets? Because the Canadian government realized through experience that there is a danger of friendly fire bombings when working closely with the United States on overseas operations. Are we actually going to need a tortured Canadian to come home in order for us to feel like we have the right to criticize? I doubt that Canada needs another incident like that of Maher Arar to remind us about how the United States treats its Canadian prisoners. Given the nature of the Canadian government, it could be said with some certainty that the original manual was probably written by a sub-contractor using extensive research that cost tax payers millions of dollars. Rewriting this manual to reflect political pleasantries would be as much of a mistake as thinking that any of the countries named would not resort to torture would be.

Thomas Baker is a third-year political studies student.





Volume 95 Issue 19	The Official University of Manitoba Students' Newspaper Website	January 30, 2008

Home About Us Advertising Rates Contact Staff Current Issue PDF Employment Letters to the Editor Meet the Staff Online Archives Volunteer Online Classifieds St. Vincent's Academy Diaries	Font Size Respond Email Print-Friendly The courage to criticize Why Canada should stand up for itself Thomas Baker There has been a major backlash regarding a leaked Canadian foreign policy training document that named countries that practice torture. Most notably named were Russia, China, Israel, and the United States. Specifically, it was the United States and Israel that were outraged at the very thought that Canadians would make up such heinous lies about their treatment of prisoners. Both countries have condemned the release and demanded action. All of this is fine, as I have no problem with a document existing in Canada that “names names” of those who use torture to further their causes. I also do not have a problem with any country releasing statements denouncing the document as lies and obscene propaganda. After all, no self-respecting country that has signed the Geneva Conventions could ever leave such allegations unchallenged. I do, however, have a problem with the Canadian government crumbling instantly to international diplomacy and having the book rewritten under the pressure of mere words from these countries. The actions of the United States and Israel are justified, if not just towards the training manual but maybe also towards the torture. After all, who are we to judge the actions of a state involved in a conflict that we ourselves deemed to be too costly to become involved in? Especially when you consider that the opposing combatants do not prescribe to the ideals of fair combat and use the restrictions set on their enemy to their advantage. Sure, the argument could be made of inhuman treatment, and “being the bigger nation,” but at the end of the day, we are gratefully not in their shoes and we don’t know the whole story. With that being said, I would not even attempt to make arguments to justify either countries reasons for being in their respective conflicts. But both countries are plagued with problems now: the United States in Iraq and Israel with the Palestinians. But the point remains: why do these countries deny their use of torture at all? Perhaps the United States and Israel should use Russia and China as examples, as neither of those countries denies the use of torture, nor do they shy away from being accountable for what they feel needs to get done. Whether the United States or Israel are willing to admit to their use of torture, justified or not, is a question that will not be answered anytime soon. The issue here is that the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier came under pressure by both countries, folded like a cheap tent, and ordered the document reviewed and rewritten. This demonstrates not only gross incompetence but also cowardice uncharacteristic of a Canadian. Who are we as a nation to criticize the actions of our closest allies in private if we don’t have the courage to do it in public? Perhaps the United States and Israel should use Russia and China as examples, as neither of those countries deny the use of torture, nor do they shy away from being accountable for what they feel needs to get done. Rather than stepping away from the conflict, Bernier should have stood up and stated that Canada as a nation rejects the use of torture and will continue to warn our citizens of its danger. After all, the document in question is an internal training manual, meant to inform diplomats of potential threats in the countries they may serve in, and it should not be subject to public or international scrutiny. Also, the document shouldn’t be subject to political rhetoric or international ass-kissing, because it must contain the best information available about what is actually going on in the world. Why do Canadian troops wear infrared-red tape on their helmets? Because the Canadian government realized through experience that there is a danger of friendly fire bombings when working closely with the United States on overseas operations. Are we actually going to need a tortured Canadian to come home in order for us to feel like we have the right to criticize? I doubt that Canada needs another incident like that of Maher Arar to remind us about how the United States treats its Canadian prisoners. Given the nature of the Canadian government, it could be said with some certainty that the original manual was probably written by a sub-contractor using extensive research that cost tax payers millions of dollars. Rewriting this manual to reflect political pleasantries would be as much of a mistake as thinking that any of the countries named would not resort to torture would be. Thomas Baker is a third-year political studies student.


Terms of Use RSS Feeds © Copyright 2008 The Manitoban Newspaper Publications Corporation