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 While the prime minister has softened — but not withdrawn — his support for the current military campaign that began in spite of progress on peace talks, he has not explained why he has long disagreed with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.