Canada position on Human Rights: Principles vs. Interests

Reading a recent article on Canada's participation in the Human Rights Council, some words by current Prime Minister Stephen Harper cause me to worry a bit.

The phrase that has stirred me concerns Canada's support of Israel of the HR Council. Mr. Harper stated that "he will not be 'bullied' into changing his position, 'whatever the diplomatic or political cost.' "

Now don't go classifying me as an anti-Semite or anything like that. I am no such thing; I believe in Israel's right to existence and outside that I generally prefer to avoid discussions on the topic because of the stubborn positions that opponents tend to take. What really worries me about this comment is the last section that states "whatever the diplomatic or political cost."

As a citizen of this great country and an international politics enthusiast, I would hope that the positions and actions of our government would take into account the inherent costs of each. Even the most indoctrinated idealist, I believe, would be worried by this stance.

I think back to my days in POLS 1000 with Dr. Michael Tucker and his teachings on Hans J. Morganthau. More specifically, the idea that politics consists of calculations of interests and the power and ability to serve these interests. Basically, Morgenthau believed that states should act in their best interests based on their abilities or power to accomplish them. This thinking exists in the realm of Realist IR theory but it is my hope that those who follow other theories of international relations pay at least some respect to its concepts.

The article that brought that brought this quote to my attention reported the findings of the Senate Committee on Human Rights. According to them, Canada's voting record has increasingly marginalized Canada amongst other nations on the Council and, of late, has isolated Canada.

If this assessment is a fair and accurate one then Canada's ability to accomplish things in the international system is threatened and diminished. In following this path, states are more likely to side against them in other subjects based on our track record in the Human Rights Council. To think that one thing will not affect others is absurd and naive.

There is nothing wrong with taking a stand on issues based on principles but only if that stand is smart for our nation. This is not an endorsement for voting against Israel or with a certain voting bloc, but rather that the costs of each decision are weighed with each decision and the most beneficial direction is taken.

Principles are important, but not at the sacrifice of our nation's abilities to act in its best interests.

- blenCOWe