In his landmark Davos address, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney warned of “a rupture in the world order”, claiming the rules-based international order is a useful “fiction”.
Canada benefited from US hegemony but knew this order was “partially false” because international law was applied with “varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim”.
Carney’s speech is significant because instead of blaming Brics states such as Russia, China or Iran for global instability, it was clearly directed at the US. It was interesting to hear a Western leader make such pointed remarks, with Carney criticising Canada’s role in endorsing a global order where the rules are different for different players.
Precedent is a fundamental legal concept that requires the same judgment to be made in similar cases. This promotes legal certainty, equality and the predictable application of law. Precedent prevents judgments from being based on whims or subjective preferences and should serve as the bedrock of international law, just like with any other legal system.
While former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte was arrested for the extrajudicial killings of drug dealers, Donald Trump has ordered strikes on fishing vessels in the Caribbean without receiving a warrant. Similarly, while Iran has been classified as a state sponsor of terrorism, regional US allies such as Qatar, who maintain links with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, have not.
Some believe regime change in Iran may be justified to liberate women, but this standard has rarely been applied to Western allies such as Saudi Arabia, which until recently was even more restrictive in its laws.
Similarly, while Russia, China and Iran are regularly criticised for being dictatorships, US-allied monarchies in the Middle East such as Jordan and Bahrain are seldom subjected to commensurate criticism.
The Western response to what the Kremlin euphemistically calls its “special military operation” in Ukraine may be another example of the “varying rigour” Carney alluded to in his speech.
One can easily argue that Russia’s actions are illegal while still acknowledging precedent, although many in the West remain reluctant to apply the same standards to US interventionism.
Whatever motivation one ascribes to Russia’s war in Ukraine, the US and its allies have taken comparable actions. If it is an attempt at overthrowing the government in Kyiv, Washington has set a precedent, engaging in various regime change operations over the years, including the recent abduction of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro.
Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were both publicly executed as a result of Western interventionism, while strikes on Iran have also coincided with calls for regime change. While still US president Joe Biden even stated that Putin “cannot remain in power”. He was quickly forced to clarify the remark, which Republicans characterised as an unfortunate blunder.
If the war in Ukraine is a war of territorial conquest or a conflict for resources, there are similar precedents from Western powers. Israeli government figures have claimed the Bible gives them the right to annex Palestinian lands, while the US has fought various wars to secure access to oil resources in the Middle East.
The US still occupies oil fields in Syria via the Kurdish militias it sponsors in the country, and the belief that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were justified as a result of the terrorist attack on the US on 9/11 has been called into question by left- and right-wing political analysts.
If Russia’s invasion was a pre-emptive attempt to secure its national security, it could be compared with Israel’s 1967 Six-Day War, which saw the country act pre-emptively to degrade regional threats.
Meanwhile, the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba was a pre-emptive attempt by the US to overthrow Fidel Castro’s communist regime, viewed as a direct national security threat due to its alignment with the Soviet Union.
The Russian government has publicly characterised their invasion as a military operation aimed at “denazification” and an attempt to root out terrorism originating from the territory of Ukraine. This was also one of the rationalisations for America’s War on Terror, with the US claiming the right to operate across international borders to root out hostile entities that threatened its security.
Vladimir Putin has also claimed Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is an attempt to protect the human rights of persecuted minorities, with legal precedent for Russia to act unilaterally. While it is possible to wage war to protect the rights of minorities under the UN Charter, it is restricted, requiring explicit authorisation from the UN Security Council. However, Nato’s intervention in Serbia in 1999 was launched without this authorisation.
This is significant because one of Russia’s main contentions has been that Nato expansion in Ukraine represents a major security threat to the Russian Federation. While Trump has been more sympathetic to Moscow’s views, in the build-up to the war US officials said Russia would have no say in the matter.
Carney suggests a solution. He says instead of being fatalistic about the unilateral actions of competing great powers, the “middle powers” can still work together to promote common ideals.
While none of this absolves Russia of responsibility for the Ukraine conflict, Russian citizens have faced exclusion as a result of their government’s actions, including bans on athletes and musicians, regardless of their personal political affiliations. At the same time, American and Israeli acts of aggression have seldom resulted in comparable Western sanctions.
Greenland has consequently emerged as a major flashpoint, with America’s exceptionalism now threatening its own allies. Beyond emboldening rivals, European nations may question whether Washington’s habit of acting unilaterally could ultimately harm their own interests.
This is not to say that the actions of the US justify the behaviour of others. Naturally, two wrongs do not make a right. What Carney is suggesting is that even when the US made mistakes, Canada still enjoyed the benefits of global stability. However, this stability is no longer assured in transatlantic relations, and even Western nations must recalibrate.
Carney suggests a solution. He says instead of being fatalistic about the unilateral actions of competing great powers, the “middle powers” can still work together to promote common ideals. At the same time, he reiterated the importance of working with others who do not share the same values, as refusing to do so would be hypocritical and even more fragmentary.
With Washington’s unilateralism now being directed at its own allies, Canada (which Trump has also demanded become part of the US) is pushing back against its neighbour.
Ottawa has made a bold statement, with Carney’s speech coinciding with efforts to mend strained ties with Brics economies such as India and China. This is a rational response to a global order that has not lived up to the ideals it promoted.
• Shubitz is an independent Brics analyst.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.