Carney warned about the need for middle powers to work together for mutual protection in a global system where there are seemingly no constraints on the actions of great powers. He suggested they should build something bigger, better, stronger and more just together.
Why, then, did his government immediately support the illegal US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran just a month later?
...
Statements made on X (formerly Twitter) by the minister of foreign affairs, Anita Anand, about Iran, Ukraine and Lebanon over the past month suggest that Canada places more blame on Iran for the war than it does on the actual aggressors.
In addressing the source of the conflict, Anand’s statements have systematically erased the original act of US-Israeli aggression, focusing instead on Iran’s response, including its strikes on Gulf states and the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s actions are denounced as reprehensible, while US and Israeli attacks are “offensive operations”.
International law is invoked against Iran, but not against the aggressors. While Canada condemns Iranian attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure and the killing of their nationals, it does not do the same for US-Israeli attacks on Iranian infrastructure or civilians.
Unfortunately there are plenty of double standards to point out. Canada has used soft language referring to the war Israel/US started and the article does a good job comparing it to Russia's war with Ukraine.
Carney is learning in real time that principled governance is not easy. Especially when you see yourself and portray yourself as the pragmatist.
Great leaders find a way to blend principles (or at least the outward perception of being principled) with pragmatism. It seems like Carney wants to get there but still has a lot of work to do.
I'd argue that Justin was a great example of a prime minister that was principled but not pragmatic.