canadian foreign policy in the 20th century was shaped broadly by the liberal party's position on working in the united nations and under the rule of law. and, the country retained consistency on this for the entire post-war period. the reason we went to afghanistan and not iraq was not some kind of gut decision on behalf of chretien, it was because the afghanistan mission was a united nations mission and the iraq war was illegal under international law.

this is one of the big issues i had with ignatieff - he seemed to root himself in the international politics of the democratic party, rather than the international politics of the liberal party.

but, something has changed in the last ten years, and it started with iraq. today, our biggest ally - which happens to be the world's only real superpower, at least for now - has completely thrown the un out the window. the russians first started reacting to this seriously in libya; they voted for a resolution to protect rebels, and were dismayed to watch it turn into a regime change operation, under the authority of nobody but the united states president. the russian annexation of crimea would not have happened if it weren't for the war to remove ghaddafi; the state department can waive international law around all it wants, but the fact is that it discarded it itself. in fact, the united states president no longer even consults congress. we've found ourselves in a world where the executive power in the united states neither sees itself constrained by international law nor by it's own domestic law.

what can canada do in this situation?

it's a pretty important issue, if not for the country then at least for the liberal party. does it continue to try and enforce an order that most of the world has entirely discarded? does it create a new set of conventions that inform how it acts?

i'm willing to accept that the un is dead. what i want, in it's place, is a system of law. the current reality where "strong leaders" make decisions to engage in conflict on gut instinct or business advantage needs to be replaced by a transparent and accountable process, whether that's at the un or within our own country. and, this is one of the very few issues where i think we need to be clear with the americans in our disagreement, and be principled on it.

we may have never left the age of empires, but canada was never an empire. i don't want to be ruled by an emperor. i want a foreign policy constrained by the rule of law.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-foreign-policy-stoffel-1.3244867
www.huffingtonpost.ca/justin-trudeau/canada-united-nations_b_8204844.html

the key point is "if the un security council had authorized it".

and, i don't doubt this. chretien would have gladly joined in - if the proper requirements were upheld under international law.

but, the un security council did not authorize it, and in fact voted against the war altogether. the americans ignored the un and invaded anyways, completely ignoring international law.

canada took the position that it had for decades previously: it would not support a war that was not sanctioned by the un. and, that is the point that i am making.

how can the liberals go back to such a policy, when we live in a world in which the security council (and the rule of international law) is no longer relevant?

anybody arguing that chretien "was not fully opposed to the war" is constructing a strawman. chretien never claimed to be against the war on pacifist or otherwise idealistic terms. he was opposed to the war for the sole reason that it was illegal.

that is longstanding liberal party policy, going back to 1945. but, is it still relevant? and, if it is not, how do we construct a set of rules that the state can use that mirror this policy, and take it out of the realm of being a personal decision to be made by the prime minister?

Marksist
The congress long ago gave up its constitutional authority as to when the country goes to war and troops are used in various sorts of conflicts; it is not a recent development under Bush or Obama.

Indeed lawlessness is what leads to crime and not the other way around. We have two not mutually exclusive options: domestic law to reduce or eliminate unjustified acts of aggression by Canada and international law under the auspices of the UN. I certainly do not write off the UN but one must not be naive to believe that such democratic institutions as even our own parliament or the ICC or ICTY will not be targeted by anti-democratic forces and be undermined. Louise Arbour consulted with war criminals Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton in pursuing the allegations against Serbia's Miloscevic; she stepped far over the line and undermined the legitimacy of the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2000/06/15/an-impartial-tribunal-really/

jessica murray
while this is arguable, it is not arguable that obama - and specifically obama, rather than bush - has entirely discarded even the illusion of the ritual. they don't even pretend anymore.

one could even say that the liberal party is under obligation to adjust to the new world order.

i'm interested to hear what trudeau has to say. and prepared to maybe be a little disappointed.

the ndp, on the other hand, has historically taken pacifist and idealist positions. they've been moving away from these position steadily, since layton - not since mulcair. this is maybe the first time they're going to get a chance to showcase that. they may even be excited about proving how "moderate" they are, now.

but i would expect traditional ndp supporters to walk out of this debate feeling rather ruffled, and far more disappointed than i'm going to be.

so, i guess that's the context on the left: some serious questions that need to be answered in the context of the new world order, and a lot of expectation for disappointment from both parties.

as it was with the french debate, it remains mulcair that has the most to lose.

i couldn't see anybody moving right that's not already there. trudeau could maybe get a boost on the f-35s from the ndp, if mulcair manages to make himself look belligerent enough in his quest to be more "centrist". more likely is that the sum of the debate is going to be yet another argument for traditional ndp protest voters to swing green.

and, again: i don't see how mulcair has an exit strategy. he made this bed.

somebody tell naomi klein to live blog this. just make sure she has a sufficient supply of kleenex.