By Patrick Burchat
On the beautiful and crisp morning of Wednesday, November 4th, Prime Minister Justin P. J. Trudeau gave Canadians their new, 31 member, cabinet. The atmosphere of Rideau Hall was one of jubilant optimism and heightened anticipation as each new cabinet Minister swore their oaths. The cause for such sentiment represents the expectation that the new government will be one of “Sunny Ways”.
Although this sentiment is always the case when a new government comes to power – as it goes through its honeymoon phase – its anticipation of major change is neither naïve nor unfounded. In looking at this new cabinet alone, several major differences stand out in contrast to previous cabinets. The first of which is the contested 50/50 gender split between male and female ministers; making the 29th cabinet the closest to having equal gender representation in Canadian history (15 female and 16 male). There is also a lot of new blood – 18 newly elected MPs – among these 31 Ministers who are poised to bring new ways of thinking and fresh energy into Canada’s policy-making procedure. Lastly, the cabinet draws on a diverse array of backgrounds; from a regional chief of the Assembly of First Nations to a decorated veteran and an accomplished international lawyer.
By Adam Patillo
The announced departure of Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets from the Middle East by Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau came as a shock to many Canadians. To be sure, withdrawing from the combat mission in Iraq and Syria was a campaign promise of the Liberals—it was expected; just not in the way it unfolded. The congratulatory courtesy call from President Obama on the night of the election was hardly the avenue you would expect the incoming Prime Minister to utilize in announcing the withdrawal of his nation’s military from an important international multi-party coalition. With one campaign promise fulfilled so quickly, many marijuana users were surely brandishing their bongs in reveled anticipation.
Gibes aside, the unspecified end of Canada’s combat mission in the Middle East—Operation IMPACT—has left many guessing what the future of Canada’s military engagement abroad will look like. For starters, the demise of Operation IMPACT will in all likelihood involve the complete withdrawal of the entire Joint Task Force-Iraq contingent: 6 CF-188 fighter jets, one CC-150T aerial refueller, two CP-140M Aurora surveillance aircraft, and 600 support personnel. While critics may argue that Canada’s relatively small contribution to the 15 member US-led coalition is unlikely to bear significant operational impacts, they miss the symbolic importance of Canada’s military engagement. It’s not only what we Canadians believe in, it’s what we can afford.
The civil war in Syria has re-captured the international media spotlight. On the ground, the situation is complex and constantly evolving, with events ranging from bullets fired at United Nations inspectors to Russian naval ships on alert in the Mediterranean. Meanwhile, the West is bracing for a military intervention to “punish” Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for allegedly deploying nerve gas against his own civilians. Disturbing photos of lifeless children have made observers painfully aware of the merciless brutality of war.
The push for Canada to intervene is emotionally and morally compelling. Accumulating body counts remind us of our indifference when hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were slaughtered in 1994. Our subsequent interventions is Kosovo and Libya, however, remind us that inaction is not the only option. Many people believe that we have the power and obligation to stop the suffering. Nonetheless, this is not a consensus view. Many experts agree that a Western intervention is likely to be unsuccessful and can only prolong the suffering.
Similarly dominating the media are two legal claims worthy of investigation. First, Western politicians allege that by using chemical weapons against his own civilians, President Assad has violated international law. Is this the case? The original intention of the Geneva Protocol was only to prohibit their use between states but not in purely domestic wars. The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits their use against civilians, but Syria is not a party to that treaty. Due to widespread state practice and sense of obligation, however, a reasonable case can be made that the unconditional prohibition on chemical weapons is customary international law. This would mean Syria has violated the prohibition, regardless of its non-party status.