HellsBelleCarney’s ‘Defeatist’ Dismissal of International Law | The Tyee
AGMSad to say, but the Carney Doctrine is bs. The speech he gave in Davos and what we see in practice are two very different things.
masterspaceNo, this is literally exactly what he said in Davos.
Remember the part about how we can only afford to be generous from strength? His point was that beggars don’t get to influence the systems that govern our world in a meaningful way, i.e. sometimes you have to focus on building yourself up in order to be a force for good.
patatasI agree that it’s what he said in Davos, but this ‘doctrine’ is effectively just caving to the outlook of Trump, Putin, et al, which deems that economic and military might make right, and that we should measure human worth in GDP rather than the inherent value of one’s humanity.
The Carney Doctrine is Value over Values, in other words. It’s really cynical and shitty tbh
I agree that it’s what he said in Davos, but this ‘doctrine’ is effectively just caving to the outlook of Trump, Putin, et al, which deems that economic and military might make right, and that we should measure human worth in GDP rather than the inherent value of one’s humanity.
You did not understand his speech at all then.
The literal entire thesis of it was that we take the world as it is, not as we want it to be. The game isn’t always set up to let you play nice and still achieve a good outcome.
Well, let’s look at Carney’s actions then.
He vocally supported the kidnapping of Maduro.
Then just days later he went and made some handshake investment deal with Qatar, a gulf dictatorship that used thousands of slaves to build its World Cup stadiums, and is the country holding onto the proceeds of Trump’s sale of stolen Venezuelan oil.
Then Carney cheered the unprovoked US & Israeli attacks on Iran, walked back his support a little when he saw the public outrage, and is now trying to weasel-word his was into Canadian troops supporting the fascist US in a war of aggression.
Brookfield has billions of dollars invested in the gulf states like Qatar that Carney is suddenly calling our “partners”, by the way
Yes, all of those actions taken to strengthen Canada economically, and position us to be in a position of future economic power that will give us the ability to enact and shape fairer systems.
You’re bitching and complaining about short term hedging his bets diplomatic moves. Naiively pursuing the most noble action at all time will not lead to a better world, it will lead to good people getting prefictably out maneuvered by shitty ones.
What’s interesting about this discussion is that all the “good” stuff Carney is supposedly aiming at is entirely hypothetical and rhetorical, and the bad stuff is very real.
40,000 jobs cut in the federal public sector by someone who promised to “cap, not cut” the public service.
Massive cuts to the CBC by someone who promised to increase their funding.
But we should keep trusting him?
I was told that Carney understood climate change and economics, and then he went and tripled down on the same fossil fuels that are causing the current global geopolitical and economic crisis. Oh, and greenwashing is legal again, which is the cherry on top of that shit sundae.
It’s been over a year of cuts and deregulation benefitting massive corporations. How long are people prepared to cling to their religious-like faith in a man who has only ever been a friend to the Goldman Sachs/Brookfield class?
It’s been over a year of cuts and deregulation benefitting massive corporations.
My fucking god. You expect him to snap his fingers, and have major nation building infrastructure projects complete and profitable within a year?
Short sighted bitching like this is why we can’t have nice things. Get off the internet and go live your life.
No, I expect him to be doing the good things that his supporters keep claiming he will do, rather than doing the bad things he has been consistently doing. But thanks for attacking me personally rather than having any kind of honest discussion, I guess?
Oh wow, now you’re sad for feeling attacked, totally how fascists feel.
Buddy, people like you are the reason Canada is falling to fascism. Reap what you sow, keep significantly utilizing American services and appeasing American corporations, that goes for Brookfield as well, major conflict of interest. What products have made Canada unique and respected around the world? Oh right, nothing.
Oh wow, another leftist who is so naiive and righteous that they can’t even get along with people who agree with them but choose a slightly different path.
Your such a credit to the cause. Your attitude totally isn’t why left wing groups always fall apart to infighting.
So Maduro was a good guy? Not a Dictator?
Qatar is bad, but Alberta is ok?
Canada would have been in Iran day 1 with Poilievre, if we weren’t the 51st state already.
It’s a turd sandwich or shit burrito situation, and it’s also impossible to please everyone’s moral center, because there is no right answer in the Gaza.
Sure, it’s 2026, everyone is an anti semite, Zionist, Fascist or tankie to the moral clerics on Reddit/lemmy.
It’s important to remember that Liberal leaders are just harm reduction as we avoid the blue faux-ristocracy. Ideally we would have an orange government or even a strong orange crutch holding up a minority red if we want some progress on things that matter to Canadians.
This guy is here to weather the economic attack from America by strengthening ties with Europe, and build up military and infrastructure so we can survive when America cuts of off from theirs in some fit of juvenile pique.
“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.
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 others 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.
The world as it is, means that it’s more nuanced and subtle then just “do good = good outcome”
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
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
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.
Lmfao, you haven’t made a single cogent point.
Go ahead and try to explain precisely how Carney is not living up to his Davos speech.
Just try. Be specific. We’ll wait.
Lol. You haven’t even shown that you understand the content of his speech. In fact, you’ve shown more that you don’t understand the content of his speech. If you did, you would have picked up on the specific elements of his speech that I referenced for criticism earlier, such as the criteria for “Living in Truth” instead of retreating into transactionalism.
Other people in this discussion have called Carney out on these failures too, including on Venezuela, Cuba, Qatar, and Iran, but you’ve stooped to insults or dismissal in response to them. I mean, we’re in a thread discussing a whole article about concerns on it, but you’re just burying your head in the sand of a poor understanding of a speech you don’t seem to have even read properly.
So, maybe you should first provide some actual substantial responses to the points already raised elsewhere in the conversation. If you’re going to ask someone to put in the work to rehash a whole bunch of arguments already provided that you’ve chosen just to ignore or dismiss, maybe you should first do the work of demonstrating that you even understand the substance of the doctrine. So far, you haven’t. You’re just defending the branding while ignoring the reality people like Axworthy have pointed out in the article and others are pointing out in the discussion.
Lmao, so you can’t articulate a single instance?
Kk man, kindly shut up. You didn’t need to type that many words to say “I’m in capable of articulating an argument”.
You aren’t capable of responding with any substance to the many points already raised.
If you don’t want to be dismissed as a joke, show you have some substance behind your position by demonstrating an actual understanding of the doctrine and responding to what’s already in the discussion.
I doubt you will, because you’ve already shown you haven’t even done your homework on the topic. You’ll keep rolling with vibes as your level of understanding.
Prove me wrong.
You want to knock out the main one the article focuses on?
Well how about the fact that that it’s literally entirely about a single specific weasle worded statement about Iran that was initiated that means nothing and was obviously done to not have Trump turn on us again?
Literally everything Lloyd Axworthy is railing against is the naiive idealism that is not reflective of the real world.
You know what happened with the Iraq war? Crétien publicly announced in parliament that we wouldn’t be joining without first telling the US privately and it created a diplomatic rift and caused trade issues with them.
You know what Crétien’s statement did for Iraqis? Nothing.
You know what actually mattered for them? Keeping Canadian troops and resources out of the war.
Now let’s compare it to Carney’s situation. He’s dealing with an even more vitriolic and preexisting trade war, with a president and cabinet who have literally repeatedly talkedd about trying to take us over, either explicitly or as a vassal state, and his choice is to also not actually support the war with resources, and instead issue a weasle worded statement that kind of sounds like it’s supporting the US while also calling them out for violating international order.
And because of that the sky is falling?? Like Jesus fucking Christ this is what I was fucking talking about when I said that this is exactly the naiive dumbassery that just says you should always call out evil in every situation no matter what because that will always lead to good outcomes.
You’re just confirming you don’t understand the doctrine.
As a consequence, you don’t understand the significance of the initial statement or subsequent ones and how they create incoherence in Canada’s foreign policy.
Additionally, you also don’t seem to be aware that on the day Chretien publicly spoke out against the Iraq war the government provided private assurance to the US of support, did provide indirect support with naval and air assets, and had a Canadian general serve in a command position in Iraq, or that Chretien had an acknowledged political strategy of cultivating an appearance of independence from the US to maintain public support that would enable him to be more useful to the US.
Who’s naïve?
You’re just confirming you don’t understand the doctrine.
As a consequence, you don’t understand the significance of the initial statement or subsequent ones and how they create incoherence in Canada’s foreign policy.
Criticize my point, or shut the fuck up.
He dealt with Brexiters, the IDU and Trump, not hard to be cynical.
The parts he is sticking to are the pivot to realism, but most of the rest has already been binned.
Values-based realism has been revealed as just realism wearing a “values” hat to make it palatable to liberals who need some hand holding into a Hobbesian state of chaos and a return to the Standard of Civilization.
The principles in “principled pragmatism” are just more branding. The principles he spoke to, including naming reality, being consistent, building what we claim to believe in have all been more absent by the week. What we’ve seen recently is actually a refusal to name reality, a refusal to be consistent, and a throwing of institutions we claimed to believe in under the bus.
No, again, you are mistaking the path to the top of the mountain as one that always slopes upwards.
Ah, the condescending tone of self-assured belief in 4D chess and promises of payoff someday in the future when evidence in 3D world is mounting in the opposite direction.
why not address the concept , as opposed to insults and hand waving? because you can’t
Your bullshit might work with the braying imbeciles you consort with, but sad news, the inmates time running the asylum is winding down
It’s not belief that Carney is taking the right path, again, it is worth continually assessing. It’s just the factual knowledge that you haven’t had enough time to assess his path finding ability, given that his stated goals weren’t going to materialize in a 6 month time frame.
His Davos speech did not simply lay out a destination. It laid out a vision for how to walk the path to reach that destination. There absolutely is evidence to demonstrate that he has contradicted his own statements about how to walk the path. He set the pathfinding standard that he’s not following. I’m just assessing him on his following the standard he set. The result of contradictions is that it’s an incoherent foreign policy, and that’s why its being called out and debated by many people in IR and policy spaces.
It laid out a vision for how to walk the path to reach that destination.
Yes, middle powers pooling together and using their collective economic power to force fairer systems.
There absolutely is evidence to demonstrate that he has contradicted his own statements about how to walk the path.
Please go ahead and tell me which middle powers banded together with him to create a fairer system?
Oh you can’t? So we’re still operating in the existing unfair system then? So then we’re back at taking the world as it is.
Reflect on what you’re writing. You’re just leaning into circular logic that absolves the Carney government by dismissing contradicting evidence out of hand.
Carney says there’s a way to do things. Carney doesn’t do things that way. Must be that Carney couldn’t do things that way. Him not meeting the standard is justified because that’s “the world as it is.”
But wait, wasn’t he the guy who knew how the world is when he set the standard in the first place?
Hmm, also, if “the world as it is” justifies every departure from the way he said to walk the path, does he even have agency as a leader navigating circumstances, or should we put his agency aside any time a decision looks off?
Reflect on what you’re writing. You’re just leaning into circular logic that absolves the Carney government by dismissing contradicting evidence out of hand.
You reflect on what you’re writing. It is not conflicting evidence it is simply a situation more nuanced than black and white.
Carney says there’s a way to do things. Carney doesn’t do things that way. Must be that Carney couldn’t do things that way. Him not meeting the standard is justified because that’s “the world as it is.”
Honestly, stop responding if you need to boil everything down to simplistic terms to understand them.
This is literally just the most basic game theory problem of coordination. A single actor cannot move on their own if the move requires the coordinated efforts of many.
Lol. I can totally understand how you would like someone to stop responding when your points keep getting cooked as you work to establish an unfalsifiable position that rejects the evidence in front of your nose.
As for understanding things in simplistic terms, you provided a great example in your other comment.
Carney’s ‘Defeatist’ Dismissal of International Law | The Tyee - Lemmy.ca
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.
Literally just try to wrap your head around the concept that Carney can’t force all middle powers to suddenly band together.
yeah it’s wild how a significant chunk of this technocrat’s supporters keep making claims that aren’t falsifiable. There’s literally nothing that people can point to that will change their mind.
Especially considering there are specific standards Carney set in his actual speech that can be used to assess his performance. It’s as though some people have so much blind faith that there’s an inability to even take what he said at face value anymore once theres a contradiction between what he said and what he did.