National Post editorial board: Making Canada a haven for deserters
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has thrown his support behind a private member’s bill from Liberal MP Gerard Kennedy. The bill, slated for a second-reading vote on Wednesday, would permit U.S. soldiers opposed to the war in Iraq to seek refuge in Canada from their sworn duty in the United States armed forces.
To say the least, Mr. Ignatieff’s support is hypocritical. He was one of the world’s leading academic supporters for the American invasion in 2002. In his 2004 book The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror, he not only justified such pre-emptive wars against rogue states, but also condoned coercive forms of interrogation that many Liberals believe are really torture. How does he square those earlier positions with his current support for giving shelter to soldiers who are running away from fighting the war on terror?
Mr. Kennedy’s bill, if left unamended, would make Canada a haven not only for American deserters, but deserters from around the world. Any soldier, whether from a country’s regular army or a ragtag militia, who objected to the fight he was being sent into, could escape to Canada and stay here permanently, so long as the battle he was fleeing was unapproved by the United Nations.
According to the United Nations, there are currently 27 active wars or conflicts around the world. Almost none have UN approval. Indeed only one – the war in Afghanistan – has anything approaching Security Council sanction. And there are those who argue the Afghan mission has changed so drastically that even it no longer qualifies as UN-endorsed.
Would Mr. Ignatieff welcome an American GI who objected to being part of the surge in Afghanistan? Canadian soldiers who similarly shirked their duties there would be subject to arrest. The passage of Mr. Kennedy’s bill might well establish a situation in which immigration officials were required to give more protection to American deserters than our own conscientious objectors would have.
We suspect both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Ignatieff would insist the former’s private member’s bill would never sanction such amnesty for Americans being sent to Afghanistan. Still, it’s not hard to imagine American deserters showing up at our border, claiming the Afghan campaign is immoral and insisting we take them in. Many of the same crusading lawyers representing the approximately 40 Iraq-war deserters already here would no doubt be only too happy to use Mr. Kennedy’s law, if passed, to advocate for similar rights for future Afghan-war deserters.
It is also worth noting that America officially ended combat operations in Iraq on August 31. Would any deserters who showed up after Mr Kennedy’s bill became law qualify to use its provisions? Is his bill anything more than one more snide, symbolic gesture to reaffirm that liberals around the world hated George Bush?
The current Obama administration isn’t likely to welcome a purported ally taking this action either, since it implies current policies – not just Mr. Bush’s – warrant Americans running out on military obligations they willingly signed up for. (There is no longer a draft to dodge. Any American seeking refuge here willingly enlisted.)
Mr. Kennedy’s bill is nothing more than an attempt to keep fighting the last culture war. And Mr. Ignatieff should be ashamed for supporting it.
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/28/national-post-editorial-board-kennedys-bill-would-make-canada-a-haven-for-deserters-from-around-the-world/#ixzz10uqP5MCy
No comments:
Post a Comment