Tomorrow, parliament will debate whether to extend the participation of the Canadian Forces in the NATO operations in Libya. First, it should be said that parliamentary approval of the operation is essential. Legislative oversight of the executive's decisions to go to war is crucial for both democratic accountability and for reducing the likelihood of involvement in unwise or illegitimate adventures.
Canada is one of the few liberal democracies that does not have a constitutional or legislative requirement for such approval, but tomorrow's debate is part of an increasingly established practice in Canada of parliamentary involvement in decisions to engage in armed conflict.
In order to make the debate meaningful, however, parliament must take seriously the issues before it. Members have a duty to rigorously interrogate the government's motives, and to question the rationales advanced for continued involvement in the conflict. It is not enough to accept platitudes and vague assertions about Canada's duties as an ally. Rather, there must be hard questions asked about the continued legitimacy of the operations, what exactly the objectives are, and how precisely our involvement advances the national interest or is consistent with our national values.
It should be recalled that the initial objective of NATO's operation was to prevent a pending humanitarian disaster, when Libyan armed forces were poised to take Benghazi. The United Nations Security Council authorized, in Resolution 1973, the use of force to impose a no-fly zone, and to take all necessary measures to protect civilians. It was a classic humanitarian intervention, with the explicit objective of, and authority limited to, protecting civilians.
President Obama and Secretary Clinton on numerous occasions stated that while the political objectives included the facilitation of a transition to a new government, for which reason Colonel Gaddafi had to leave, the military objectives of the intervention was strictly limited to the protection of civilian populations under threat from Gadaffi's forces.
The objectives of NATO have clearly evolved. In classic "mission creep," the operations now are obviously aimed at driving Gaddafi out. Last week NATO, with Canadian air force participation, again bombed Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli, which cannot be explained as being related to the protection of civilians.
The Canadian government's objectives are just as clearly aligned with this new goal of enforcing regime change. Defence Minister Peter MacKay has suggested that Gaddafi's departure is necessary to the goal of protecting civilians. While it is patently not true that killing or exiling Gaddafi is necessary for the protection of civilians in Libya, the statement reflects an acknowledgment that forcing Gaddafi out is now the stated goal of the Canadian government.
Members of parliament need to clearly understand, for the purposes of tomorrow's debate, that this objective of regime change is illegitimate and unlawful. The Security Council Resolution very explicitly limits the authority for the use of force to the establishment of a no-fly zone and the protection of civilians. It even quite explicitly excludes any foreign occupation force in any part of Libya, in contemplation of any attempted foreign-imposed regime change.
As NATO operations increasingly extend beyond the narrow mandate of protecting civilians from immediate threats, they are moving outside of the legal authority provided by the Security Council. Under international law, the use of armed force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state is prohibited, unless it is for the purposes of self-defence or it is authorized by the Security Council. The intervention on behalf of an insurgency against a legitimate government, with the purpose of effecting regime change, is quite clearly unlawful.
How is Canada's involvement in an increasingly illegitimate and unlawful operation in the national interest? Several other NATO countries, including Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands, have refused to participate for just these reasons. Canada's traditional role on the international stage, from the time of Lester Pearson's Nobel Prize winning role in the Suez Crisis, has been to operate as an honest broker and peacekeeper. Yet now, while we refuse calls for us to commit funds to assist the establishment of meaningful democratic changes in Egypt and Tunisia, we throw our resources and national effort into an increasingly illegitimate military intervention in a neighboring Muslim state. Why exactly? If we are so little interested in furthering the "Arab Awakening," why are we intervening in an insurgency that sprung from the same seeds? Gaddafi's regime poses no threat to our national security, and even the U.S. government has stated that Libya is not of critical strategic importance. The Canadian government has an obligation to explain precisely how this intervention is furthering the national interest, and consistent with our national values and traditional roles.
The reality is that the primary reason for this policy is to curry favor with the Americans and to enhance Canada's "influence" within NATO. It is the same reason that Canada has been so committed to the operations in Afghanistan, as Janice Stein and Eugene Lang have revealed in their book The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar.
Is that a sound reason for committing the nation to armed conflict? Is it worth the money and other resources that are being spent on these operations? Is it of sufficient value to justify the likely enmity that Canada is provoking in the Islamic world for its continuing involvement in military interventions that are perceived as imperialistic? And members of parliament should consider this question: is it really moral or right to ask members of the Canadian Forces to kill and die for marginal increases in Canadian influence within NATO?
So rather than rubber-stamping a decision to extend the operations in Libya, members of parliament have a duty to ask tough questions. Among these are: why exactly are we engaging in unlawful regime change? How is it in our national interest? How is it consistent with our values and traditional role in the world? For what purpose are we asking our servicemen and women to die?
Follow Craig Martin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craigxmartin
Robert Barrett, PhD: Libya: Should We Stay or Should We Go?
Walkom: Do opposition MPs still laud Canada's ludicrous Libyan war?
Canada's Libya mission tab at $26M and counting
BBC News - Libya: Canada to send fighter jets for no-fly zone
CTV Edmonton - Canada at war with Libya - CTV News
As politicians hit hustings, Canada's Libya mission flies under ...
Mr. Martin is a former officer of the CAF. The statement above is false on the face of it, and would have been improved if he had made clear that Parliamentary approval of armed force is required in Canada, both Constitutionally and legislatively, but such authorization may already be standing and therefore there is no need to return to Parliament, but it has become the practice to do so.
The CAF are the armed forces of the Crown, as represented by the Governor General of Canada, and not the government.
The Crown takes advice from Parliament, and not the government, and acts on that advice. The Prime Minister, as selected by Parliament, acts as the messenger between Parliament and Crown.
The Crown does not go to war on the advice of government, only on the advice of Parliament.
If a government proposed to the Crown armed force that was not somehow authorized by Parliament at some point of time, the Crown would not comply.
For example, Parliament has already legislatively authorized war in respect to NATO and NORAD treaties.
The convention of nevertheless bringing these wars to Parliament is political, but the wars are already Constitutionally authorized by standing legislation, which Parliament could revoke at any time.
After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.K. and Australia both began debating draft legislation to narrow the scope of the Royal Prerogative, and to require greater parliamentary involvement in decisions to go to war. Canada is in fact one of the most laggard countries in terms of formalizing a legal requirement to obtain parliamentary approval of cabinet decisions to use armed force.
Canada does have a written Constitution, and the Constitution (in Section 91) reserves for Parliament (and not the government) "Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence".
With respect to the implications of your statements regarding the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister in this role acts as representative for the Parliament, and serves at the sufferance of Parliament, and Parliament can remove the Prime Minister without any election.
We do not have a presidential system with a separate elected executive.
And I am very surprised at your lack of understanding of Canadian history. That the UK Royal Prerogative was abused to bring Canada into WWI changed our country permanently and forced our independence, by the time of WWII Canada was independent of the UK and required the Canadian Parliament to approve the declaration of war.
Which it did, in a special session of Parliament.
Parliament has authorized in advance some uses of armed force, for example, with respect to NATO and NORAD. Such uses do not need reaffirmation by Parliament, although the political custom has been to bring them to Parliament as soon as possible.
And of course, Parliament can remove the authorization to use armed force at any time.
In Canada, constitutionally and legislatively, Parliament approves the use of armed force.
Harper and his cons are as disgusting as they are conservative.
The mission was ill advised to begin with. It was obvious from the outset that the "humanitarian" purpose was a fraud. This entire mission has been about helping out European allies protect their biggest source of oil from Africa or the Mideast that did not have to come through the Suez Canal. Canada went along with this for two reasons: 1) its almost pathetic eagerness to show it is a player on the world stage; and 2) its fawning, sycophantic willingness to please both its mother (the UK) and its big brother (the USA).
Thank god for Chretien or Canada would have jumped feet first into Iraq and the cost of another stupid war would have been needlessly added to the Canadian budget and even more Canadian lives would have been wasted overseas.
God help us all if they are still in power when they get their hands on those new toys (jets). They have destroyed our reputation as peace keepers, and are putting Canadians in real danger of the war being brought to Canada by terrorists.Let other NATO counties continue this if they think it necessary. We have done more than our share!!
His investors on the American right are eager to reap the dividends that their support brings.