When soldiers shot and killed hundreds protesting the overthrow of Egypt’s first democratically-elected government, Ottawa’s response was to issue bromides.
It has had no comment on the arrest of democratically elected president Mohammed Morsi and no comment on the Egyptian coup-masters’ decision to imprison their political opponents.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper did have the grace to say he is “extremely concerned” about the fate of two Canadians arrested in Egypt in the coup’s aftermath.
But he had nothing to say when a Canadian resident was shot and killed in Egypt during an anti-coup protest.
On the coup itself, the prime minister has maintained radio silence. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has done little better, occasionally noting Canada’s “deep concern” over unspecified violence and calling for “meaningful political dialogue.”
Baird did condemn attacks on Christian churches in Egypt. Andrew Bennett, Canada’s ambassador for religious freedom, also condemned the shooting death of a Coptic Christian priest.
Yet no one in Canada’s government has gone to bat for the religious freedom of those tens of thousands of Egyptian Muslims who elected Morsi, nor for the hundreds who lost their lives to protect that choice.
None of this is to suggest that a stronger expression of disapproval could, on its own, alter events. Canada doesn’t have that kind of clout.
Still, it is curious that Harper has been so obdurately silent. This is the same man who has long called for Canada to base its foreign policy on morality.
Previous Canadian governments, he said in 2003, had fallen into the trap of moral relativism. “The emerging debates on foreign affairs,” he wrote then, “should be fought on moral grounds.”
And for a while, it seemed that Harper meant what he said.
As prime minister, he chastised China’s government for its shoddy human rights record, famously promising in 2006 that Ottawa would not “sell out to the almighty dollar.”
In the Middle East, he spurned nuance, arguing that Canada’s moral duty was to support democratic Israel against all enemies, no matter what.
He treated the Afghan War as a black and white issue and took the same approach to Libya. He has never missed an opportunity to demonize Iran’s theocratic government and last year suspended diplomatic relations with that country.
Over time, he has trimmed his sails — particularly with regard to China, where his distaste for the country’s Communist regime collided with the financial interests of Canadian business.
Still, his silence on Egypt stands out. His government is not shy about attacking human rights violations in other nations where Canada has no influence, such as Russia or Syria.
Given the paralysis of U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration and the dithering of the European Union, a more activist Ottawa might even be able to play a useful role in resolving the Egyptian crisis. It has done so in similar circumstances before.
But instead, there is nothing.
The exact reasons for this silence are unclear. True, the U.S. president has chosen to say little. But Harper has been more forceful than Obama before, most notably on Libya.
And for a prime minister who likes his moral issues stark, the coup against Morsi should provide a compelling example.
Like Harper, Morsi was a polarizing leader. Like Harper, he operated largely within the laws but remained mistrustful of the civil service and judiciary.
Like Harper, Morsi is loathed by a large portion of the population, who believe his party to be dominated by ideologues.
But like Harper, he was democratically elected in a fair vote. While elections aren’t perfect, Harper has more right to govern his country than anyone else. And so does Morsi.
In 2008, Harper denounced his political opponents as undemocratic when they tried to dethrone him legally. I expect he would be even more vocal if they staged a military coup against his Conservative government.
It’s odd that this champion of Western values can’t accord Egyptian voters the same respect.
No comments:
Post a Comment