Blayne Haggart

Lloyd Axworthy: Canada once rejected America’s aggressive, unlawful foreign policy. Today Mark Carney embraced it By endorsing preventive strikes on Iran during ongoing diplomacy, and after Washington itself shredded the previous agreement, we are embracing the very doctrine we used to reject, writes Lloyd Axwort...

"We invoke international law and the 'rules based international order' when adversaries engage in unlawful actions, but abandon those same rules entirely when it’s the Americans doing the bombing."

#Opinion from former foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy

Should’ve written attack, not invasion. Illegal under international law, either way.

Canada is only one country. It couldn’t have stopped the illegal US and Israeli invasion. But as prime minister, Mark Carney had the obligation to stand up for fundamental Canadian interests in sovereignty and the rule of law. He failed to do so, utterly.

Acting as international law doesn’t exist, as Carney is doing in his refusal to even mention the term, creates a self-fulfilling prophesy. Worse, it creates the might-makes-right world many Canadians thought Carney wanted to prevent. It makes us easy pickings for Trump’s US.

International law, not just force of arms, is the guarantor of Canadian sovereignty. And, contra Carney’s Davos speech, International law is not a lie but a shared truth. That means it’s only as as powerful as the international community decides it is. That starts with leaders like Carney.

If, as some have suggested, Carney’s decided that int’l law no longer holds any weight because we’re in a time of ”rupture,” then that’s as good as ceding our sovereignty to the US, since there is no way that Canada can resist US coercion if push comes to shove, no matter how ”resilient“ our economy

Saul said countries like Australia and Canada should be pushing the US to respect international law. “It’s difficult to stop a superpower, but if middle powers and other coalitions of states raise the political price on the United States by objecting strenuously every time they break the law, it does make it a lot harder for the US to get away with it in future cases.

The moment calls for middle-power coalitions to counter unilateral superpower aggression: the defence of international law. Many thought Carney’s Davos speech argued for this. But his actions suggest nothing of the sort, but rather an exclusive focus on new trade agreements. How very 1990s.

Supporting ‘illegal aggression’ against Iran ‘the worst thing’ Australia could do, international law experts say Ben Saul says ‘rolling over’ after Israel and US attack is counterproductive for middle powers because it undermines rules-based order

The best that can be said for Mark Carney’s full-throated support for Trump’s illegal war is that he’s not alone in making the worst-possible decision, one that’s completely antithetical to Canada’s interests as a sovereign country.
www.theguardian.com/world/2026/m...

It’s possible to condemn the Iranian regime and condemn the attacks by the US and Israel.

This statement does not do that. This is an endorsement of unilateral military action.

Tell me again how there's anything moral about Anthropic.
This is a story with no good guys.

YouTube video by PetShopBoys Parlophone Pet Shop Boys - DJ Culture (Official Video) [HD Upgrade]

Pet Shop Boys - DJ Culture (1991)

it’s just the first 10 min that’s overtly angry :) full special on YT youtu.be/v5kJlI41V2g?...

After 26 years of diamond mining, Tłı̨chǫ government and Rio Tinto sign deal for Diavik closure | CBC News On Thursday evening the Tłı̨chǫ Government & Diavik officials marked a step towards Diavik’s upcoming closure and the beginning of reclamation work.

This is a huge step for responsible mine closure and transition: a community agreement that embeds environmental and social objectives.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

a painting of a butterfly with red and green spots Alt: a GIF of a Rorschach test image

When people ask me what Carney's Davos speech *means* for Canada's place in the world, my standard reply is something along the lines of "the brilliance of the speech is that it can mean whatever you want it to mean."

How straight is it if people can’t agree on what he meant?
But yeah, he needs to explain himself.

Carney isn't even treating Canadians with the same consideration and respect most CEOs treat employees. It's capital-O-Odd that he hasn't sat down for an interview or made any attempt to integrate his Davos speech into some sort of outreach to Canadians.

"...you might as well go full Mussolini and invade some random-ass country on a whole other continent. We saw how that ended up for ol’ Benito. And while I offer no predictions about Trump’s ultimate fate, I would encourage him to keep his feet presentable for when he is hung upside down by them.”

It’s a real problem that there’s so much legitimate confusion about the meaning of Carney’s Davos speech. Typically, that’s not what you want from a political speech.
It’s a real failing of Carney as a democratic leader that he’s let a general confusion about his agenda fester for almost a year.

Finally, a post script regarding the idea that this statement constitutes Davos in action. Taking Carney's words at face value, with respect I disagree with the assertion.

www.weforum.org/stories/2026...

If your perspective is that Canada should only voice support for international law when it has an narrow self interest in doing so, we're no longer discussing international law.

The hypocritical rules based order is over, to be replaced by a hypocrisy based disorder.

A mad king's illegal war on Iran is a cry for regime change...in Washington | Will Bunch Democracy really did die in darkness as Donald Trump's unconstitutional war on Iran stamps America as a dictatorship.

No wonder Trump went to war with Iran in the dead of night, with the Capitol empty, most Americans soundly asleep

This war is illegal. Full stop. The worst abuse of presidential power in American history aims to cement a dictatorship on U.S. soil

My instant column www.inquirer.com/opinion/trum...

This is one of the key reasons that I have a no generative AI policy in each of my classes. I do not want students, many of whom are already stressed and vulnerable, slipping into this predicament. It is also why I design my classes for students to talk to & work with each other to reduce isolation.

ההחלטה לתקוף באיראן שהתקבלה בביקור נתניהו בארה"ב וחלוקת התפקידים בישראל ובארה"ב נערכו לכמה ימים של תקיפות אינטנסיביות באיראן • בכיר ישראלי טוען כי ההחלטה לצאת לתקיפה התקבלה בביקור נתניהו בוושינגטון: "האיראנים קיבלו הזדמנות אחרונה - והרסו אותה"

Channel 12 reported that Trump and Netanyahu settled on this course of action during the Israeli PM's visit to Washington on February 11. That suggests weeks of negotiations have all been for show. www.mako.co.il/news-militar...

Justin Ling: Trump and Netanyahu have made a dangerous gamble in Iran. Why is Carney cheering them on? We should cheer when the brutal Iranian regime falls, whenever that may come to pass. But we should condemn this chaotic, risky violence and all the death that comes with

"The United Kingdom, France, and Germany all managed to comment on the situation without endorsing this war."

www.thestar.com/opinion/star...

“In fact, add all that to the sign,” Carney noted, polishing the ‘reinstated international order’ sign so hard that it could be seen from space. “Trump and Netanyahu need to know Canada is super down for — what did I also say at Davos? — oh yeah, ‘being on the menu.’”

Because there'll always be friction in the relationship. And b/c Trump can't be trusted to keep his word, there's no way to make Canada compliant enough to avoid retaliation. If you try, as Carney's done for a year, it will only result in giving away your independence, one compromise at a time.

There are important differences between 2002 and 2026, not least that the US is currently authoritarian, not democratic, and is run by an unaccountable madman. But these just makes the argument against appeasement stronger.

Thankfully, then, Canada had an experienced politician at the helm, who could see beyond a balance sheet and had a multifaceted understanding of Canada's national interest in supporting the international rule of law and not getting bogged down in a foolish, illegal war.

(Fun fact: That appeasement argument irked me so much I decided to leave my economist job to do a PhD on the potential for Canadian and Mexican policy autonomy vis a vis the US.)