It looks like a classic case of one country being accused of human rights violations . . ., but wait. It is not any Third World country. The country in question is none other than Canada, and the accusation did not come from an NGO used for this kind of stuff, but from the UN Committee Against Torture.
Canada does not carry a colonial tag like its European kin across the Atlantic, where history could still be at play, nor does it harbor ambitious superpower feeling that may put it at loggerheads with others, like its southern neighbor, the United States. Being located far away and relatively isolated geographically, with good economy, huge resources and relatively under-populated, Canada continues to score high marks in both standards of living and respect for human rights.
But earlier this month the UN body found that the record is not as clean as people thought.
It cited three aspects in this regard: The famous cases of rendition, where Canadian security forces collaborated with their colleagues in the Middle East following the tragic Sept. 11 incidents that resulted in handing over some of the suspects to be investigated through rough means including torture. In one case at least the Canadian government was forced to make a public apology and compensate one of those victims.
The other issue cited is related to the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan during a combat mission where the safety of detainees were compromised and the third was the immigration laws that may increase the risk of human rights violations as it allows the government to detain or deport foreign nationals or permanent residents who may be seen as posing a threat to national security.
Official reaction to this report was a typical official reaction: Why the UN watchdog picked Canada at a time when human rights violations are taking place all over the world. Others may find solace that a developed country and a member of G-7 is closing ranks with typical Third World practices, while others may find it an opportunity to drum up the issue of double standard where Western countries lecture others on human rights issues while forget about what is happening in their own backyard.
All that could be true and may score a point here or there, but does not get closer to the issue.
The issue is how the state is expected to behave in this age of globalization and communication revolution which has its impact on the ability of the state in using its power in a conventional way. Because of globalization a growing external factor is becoming an integral part of any domestic policy and the way things are conducted. Canada’s involvement in faraway Afghanistan is not seen only as support to the close US neighbor and ally, but a way of self-defense as well. Also, because of the communication revolution the ability of an individual and communities to beam out news and views is on the rise and sometimes at the expense of the conventional power of the state.
Because of these developments, issues like intervention as being preached now in the case of Syria is getting ground as happened before in Bosnia for instance, but the old arguments based on the national state and its sovereignty are still valid and alive.
Earlier this month former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger joined the debate on military intervention in Syria bringing to spotlight the issue of what kind of international order people should be looking for. He pointed out that the present world order is based on the 1648 Westphalia treaty that ended Europe’s 30 years wars, reining in ambitions and adventures of competing monarchies then for influence across the continent. That principle of non-intervention did not outlive only two world wars and almost countless bilateral and even regional ones, but more important the new kind of struggle dubbed Cold War. Interesting enough it was Stalin who forced his will over Trotsky and others who wanted to spread their socialist revolution after it established itself in Russia. What Stalin did was in effect being loyal to the Westphalia treaty.
At stake really is how to manage world affairs at the time old institutions based on the sovereignty of national state are crumpling under the pressures of globalization and communication revolutions, while the new ones have not emerged and established themselves yet.
