By Peter Ewart

Previous federal Liberal governments have made much ado about the doctrine of “Responsibility to protect” in foreign policy.  More recently, Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion has put forward the murky doctrine of what he calls “Responsible conviction.”  Not a few people feel that both of these so-called “responsibility” doctrines are nothing but excuses to justify and sugarcoat military aggression (1) (2).

But, that issue aside, what about the Liberal government’s responsibility to tell the truth to the Canadian people?  In that regard, Dion and the his government are recklessly abdicating their responsibility and misleading  the country about the $15 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia, a country with a terrible human rights record as well as a history of committing aggression and supporting terrorist organizations.

The terms of the $15 billion deal to provide combat vehicles and other military equipment to the Saudi regime were negotiated by the previous Harper government.  After the federal election last Fall, the new Liberal government gave the clear impression that it had no choice but to go through with the arms sale because it was a “done deal.”  Furthermore, Foreign Minister Dion claimed that Saudi Arabia had not “misused” any of the huge amounts of military equipment previously sold to it by Canada and thus was eligible to receive it (3).

So, according to the Liberal government, Canadians were supposed to sit back and accept a deal that the federal government had “no choice” but to go through with, even though it amounts to pouring more gasoline onto the raging fires of conflict in the Middle East which are giving rise to so much human misery.

However, as a result of a lawsuit filed by University law professor Daniel Turp, information has emerged that directly contradicts Stephane Dion and the Liberal government’s fairy tale about the arms deal.  For one thing, according to secret government documents brought forth by the lawsuit, it has now been revealed that the export permits for the arms deal were signed by Stephane Dion behind closed doors only a few days ago on April 8, 2016.  In other words, contrary to the impression given by the Liberal government since last Fall, the deal was not a “done deal” which somehow the Liberals were locked into.

To put it plainly, as Opposition figures and media pundits have pointed out, it seems that the Canadian people have not been told the truth by Minister Stephane Dion and his government regarding the approval of this very controversial arms sale.  Nor have they been told the truth about the Liberal government’s so-called “principled foreign policy” and “upholding of human rights” in regards to Saudi Arabia.

According to Dion, when Canada sells military equipment it does so “in a manner that is consistent with international law, with human rights and with our national interests”.  Yet Saudi Arabia just recently began bombing Yemen, a neighboring country, hitting “residential areas, hospitals, schools, markets and mosques” to an extent that human rights organizations believe that war crimes may have been committed (4).  The regime also engages in brutal and barbaric oppression of its own people, as well as supporting and financing terrorist organizations associated with Al Queda and ISIS in Syria and elsewhere.

So much for the “principled foreign policy” of the Trudeau Liberal government regarding arms sales.

There is another interesting development in this fiasco.  The New York Times just published an article (5) stating that Saudi Arabia has threatened to sell off hundreds of billions of U.S. Treasury bills if the U.S. Congress goes ahead with legislation that allows the Saudi government to be held responsible for any role in the 9/11 attacks in New York 15 years ago.  This is at a time when the U.S. government is under growing pressure to release the infamous “28 pages” that have been withheld from the public for some years in the 9/11 Congressional report.  These missing 28 pages are said to implicate certain Saudi government officials in facilitating the 9/11 terrorist attack.

The passage of the legislation and the release of the 28 pages would undoubtedly generate a huge controversy.  If Saudi Arabia went ahead with its threat to sell off massive amounts of U.S. Treasury bills, this could destabilize currency markets and possibly impact the global economy.

Yet, in the midst of all of this, here is Canada proceeding along with a massive arms export to this out-of-control Middle Eastern country that is currently bombing a neighboring country, oppressing its own citizens, supporting terrorists, and now threatening financial markets.

Too often, when governments do not tell the truth to their citizens, catastrophe results, especially if it has to do with war.  For example, the U.S. government did not tell the truth when it justified invading Iraq back in 2003 under the hoax that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, nor did it tell the truth when it launched the first Gulf War (justified in part with the false claim that Saddam Hussein’s army was disconnecting the incubators of babies in hospitals).

A more recent example was the bombing of Libya and the overthrow of the Qaddafi government which Canada, unfortunately, took part in.  The justification for this bombing was supposedly because Qaddafi was about to massacre civilians (6).  After Qaddafi was overthrown and murdered, and Libya hurled into sectarian chaos and destruction (where it still remains), it was revealed that the so-called massacre was a hoax perpetrated by opposition terrorists, some of whom later went on to form ISIS in Syria and Iraq with devastating consequences (7).

Already, candidates for the U.S. presidency like Hillary Clinton are threatening further intervention in Syria (with a no-fly zone that would directly confront Russia) and the Middle East.  Who knows what lies and disinformation will be used to justify future interference and aggression?  Will Canada be further dragged into the wars in that region by Clinton or another U.S. president?  Will we be misled by our own government once again?

Misleading Parliament and misleading the Canadian people are serious offences.  In fact, when it comes to military affairs, they have life and death consequences for both soldiers and people.

Minister Dion should resign.

Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia.  He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca

1. Cohn, Marjorie.  “The responsibility to protect – the case of Libya and Ivory Coast.”  Global Research.  May 16, 2011.  http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-responsibility-to-protect-the-cases-of-libya-and-ivory-coast/24799
2. “Responsible conviction: Another criminal doctrine of Canada’s Foreign Affairs to justify aggression and war.”  TML Weekly Information Project.  April 9, 2016.  http://cpcml.ca/Tmlw2016/W46015.HTM#1   
3. Chase, Steven.  “Liberals accused of lying about Saudi arms deal.” Globe and Mail.  April 13, 2016.  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-accused-of-lying-about-saudi-arms-deal/article29627989/
4. Macdonald, Neil.  “When Saudis are involved, the new boss in Ottawa is just like the old boss.”  CBC.  April 14, 2016.    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-saudi-arabia-arms-lav-contract-liberals-conservatives-neil-macdonald-1.3534795
5. Mazzetti, Mark.  “Saudi Arabia warns of economic fallout if Congress passes 9/11 Bill.”  New York Times.  April 15, 2016.  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html?_r=0
6. Milne, Seumas.  “If the Libyan war was about saving lives, it was a catastrophic failure.”  The Guardian.  October 26, 2011.    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure
7. Cartalucci, Tony.  “CNN: Libyan ‘rebels’ are not ISIS.”  Land Destroyer Report.  Nov. 19, 2014. http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/2014/11/libyan-rebels-are-now-isis.html