Near the conclusion of the recent (perhaps very significant) G20 Summit in Pittsburg, PA, Stephen Harper, Canada's prime minister, made a statement regarding the recent revelation that Iran has been hiding a secret nuclear facilitity.
Here's the statement itself. Let's take a look at these paragraphs which come to us via the CBC:
"Iran, the combination of its abhorrent ideology and its interest in nuclear technology, combined with increasing evidence of its obvious disregard for international law and for its obligations, constitutes a grave threat to international peace and security," Harper said at a closing news conference at the G20 meetings in Pittsburgh.
"We will work closely with our allies in the international community to encourage effective and reasonable responses to that threat."
The Asterisk
I am in agreement with the message, insofar as the regime's behaviour needs to change and that the international community needs to ensure this happens. So as far as the big picture goes, the government is on course.
But does anyone else think this statement got a little bit mangled?
1st Problem - What Constitutes the Threat?
The opening sentence is just bad writing. It muddies the waters and fuzzies the message. Those elements of the English language which narrowly escaped this rhetorical blaze make it clear, however, that the Government of Canada believe that Iran - not merely its allegedly illicit behaviour, but the nation as such - constitutes "a grave threat to international peace and security".
This is provocative and confrontative language. It does not isolate certain behaviour (a la "love the sinner, hate the sin") as constituting a problem, but rather states that the nation as a whole represents an existential threat to international peace and security. Those who have an appropriate appreciation for the importance of language in diplomacy may agree with me that this is a bit problematic. It's a problem because it represents confrontational language without pointing toward a solution.
2nd Problem - Ideology is Irrelevant
Why all this talk about its ideology? I agree that the ideological foundations of the Iranian regime are repugnant, but this isn't the issue. Iran's ideology - notwithstanding the grammatical contortions within the prime minister's statement - does not in itself constitute a grave threat to international peace and security. Suggesting otherwise is simply inflammatory and indicates a preference for confrontation instead of a peaceable resolution to the problems.
Third Problem - Favouring Military Action
Third - and this isn't so much a problem as an observation - there is no stronger diplomatic language available than the words "X constitutes a grave threat to international peace and security." The words "international peace and security" is a reference to the UN Security Council's mandate to preserve the same by all necessary and convenient measures. The government of Canada has, by way of this statement, implied quite clearly that Canada would support any coercive measures designed to undermine Iran's pursuit of nuclear armament. There is no higher order of threat than one that has been deemed "grave", and there is no higher order of international condemnation than coercive measures, be they diplomatic, economic, or - as I feel this statement was meant to refer to - military.
While I am in favour of keeping all options on the table and of using force if necessary to ensure compliance with international law and the non-proliferation norm, this statement puts Canada out in front of the crowd. Canada - perhaps along with the UK, France, and less so the United States - is leading the charge toward confrontation with Iran if this statement is representative of the government's view (and we must assume that it is). Again, I am not necessarily opposed to this, but what's the political and diplomatic logic? The strategic endgame? Does Canada want to use this kind of language and assume this kind of posture several steps before those countries which would do most of the heavy lifting - the US and EU powers - are as committed to coercive measures?
Fourth Problem - Whose Allies? & Liberal v. Realist?
Fourth. What does "we will work closely with our allies in the international community to encourage effective and reasonable responses to that threat" mean? Will we work exclusively with our allies? Last time I checked Russia and China are not allies of Canada (international peers, yes, and 'partners' depending the day. But allies? No.) Does this sentence refer only to the great nations of the Anglo-American family of states plus its extended ideological family in Europe and east Asia? Of course it doesn't, but you get what I mean.
Why use UN language - international peace and security - and then imply a willingness to work only with our allies, only three of which (US, UK, France) hold permanent seats on the UN Security Council? This statement intones two different logics in its justification for an assertive posture: liberal and realist. The former is about upholding international law, the latter is about assessing, with allies, what constitues an action-worthy threat according to the views of such allies. Are we liberal internationalists or are we realists? (Again, I join you in believing that we needn't fall neatly into one category, but a smidgen more coherence would suit this instance handsomely.)
Fifth Problem - Hot Rhetoric, Cool Plans
Fifth. Why will we "work to encourage effective and reasonable responses to that threat"? There is a special kind of redundancy in that sentence. Working to deliver effective responses is similar to encouraging the delivery of effective responses, though the former is more active and the latter is more passive. Is Canada going to play a meaningful role in crafting and delivering a response or will we tug at the trousers or our more powerful allies?
Conclusion
The Harper-led government's foreign policy has a lot of strengths. Draughting diplomatic language, however, is not one of them.
At least not this time.
__________________________
UPDATE: FYI here is some great reportage on major powers' responses to the news of Iran's secret nuclear facility.
2 Comments
Hi Matt, you have certainly done a thorough discourse analysis on Prime Minister Harper's statement. I think the value of this type of analysis depends on type of statement which is examined. If it is an off the cuff response to a question, then while interesting, it could be a momentary gaff or misrepresentation. However, in this case the Prime Minister had obviously put a lot of thought into his position (although as you point, perhaps some of that time could have been spent on grammar).
I agree with you that the phrase "grave threat to international peace and security" represents somewhat of a call to action from Harper. Although, I am remain unclear as to whether this government favours direct intervention or was giving tacit permission for Israel to strike this facility.
Michael makes a good point in calling it a "call to action". It is in keeping with Harper's consistently hawkish position on the Middle East, and especially on Iran. It's not surprising that he would be hawkish on Iran, either: there is a lot of lingering Canadian anger over the Zehra Kazemi case, where a Canadian-Iranian photojournalist was imprisoned and then beaten to death in 2003.
That said, this statement was made against the backdrop of a struggle between Canada's parties over positioning in the inevitable—if delayed—upcoming federal election. Harper's choice of language like "grave threat to international peace and security" is an act of diplomacy, yes, but as much to his domestic supporters as to the outside world. The stimulus measures that he's enacted since the fall of 2008 has created some strain between the P.M. and his conservative base. He needs to repair that relationship; this is one of the ways to do it.
Remember that foreign policy is aimed inwards as much as outward. All leaders have internal constituencies to please if they want to remain leaders. Stephen Harper is no different.