WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2022
16 •
Opinion
OPINION EDITOR SAMUEL DUFFY opinion@thecord.ca
What should the West’s response be to Russia’s invasian of the Ukraine? SAM DUFFY OPINION EDITOR
The invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces has drawn international condemnation. The fighting has reached the capital of Ukraine, Kyiv. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claims that sanctions against Russia from Western allies have not done enough and that he needs ammunition, not sanctions, to defend his country. As Ukraine is not a NATO member state, the West has no legal obligation to engage with Russia. However, the moral call remains as loud as ever. When President Zelensky says that sanctions are not enough, he is correct. If economic sanctions were enough to scare Russian President Vladimir Putin, troops would be withdrawing back to Russia and territory would be swiftly handed back. If troops continue to march onwards, the economic sanctions do not work, or do not work fast enough. It is all well and good to stop using Russian oil and stop financial transactions, but if Russian troops reach Poland by the time the Russian economy bears the full toll of the sanctions the strategy is ineffective. What obligation do weas a nation have to protect Ukraine from Russian invasion? That’s the fundamental question. If they were a NATO member
CONTRIBUTED IMAGE
state we’d have a military presence in the country at a minimum, as would all other NATO countries. But because they are not, the reasoning used for getting our hands dirty must have a moral basis. One fear that seems reasonable is that, adorned with the belief that they have exceptionalism and they alone can act as the world police, the United States will enter single handedly into the conflict. While I believe this is unlikely,
a lack of will by other Western nations could force the hand of our southern neighbors. The United States does not wage war half-heartedly. Trepidation may come from the precedent that Western involvement would set. If the West becomes involved militarily in Ukraine, they must also become involved if (I am biting my tough to avoid using “when”) China invades Taiwan.
Can you really say one is less authoritarian or militaristic than the other? Western involvement here is future involvement everywhere. And Western involvement now is future involvement always. We cannot pick and choose. We must set our standards now and stick to them. The hesitancy is, even if you disagree with it, understandable. In deterrence theory, peace comes from a balance of power
and will. That is, you have to actually believe that if you push the doomsday button the other person will do it too. There’s a similar concept that I think applies in this case. You can rant and rave about being defenders of democracy all you want as the West, but President Putin has just called the bluff. He did not believe us when we said we would be there for Ukraine. We may have the firepower, but we lack the will. World leaders, including our own Prime Minister, meet this week to decide on a strategy to engage with Russia. A balance must be struck. Economic sanctions have not worked, and if they will eventually work, they’ll take too long. I cannot in good conscience call for full scale Canadian military involvement when other options have not been explored. I also find the instinctual attitude of some people to call for the sons and daughters of Canadians to risk life and limb when they themselves lie peacefully in their beds rather disquieting. I do not know what an ideal solution looks like in this case, but we must find something more than sanctions. The real issue is that our institutions and governments are thought of as weak and that our bluff has been called. Now is the time for significant action, in a time where the will to act is a lost art.
This is what a Liberal-NDP pact means for Canada Breaking down the controversy behind the pact made between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh CONOR COLUMB OPINION COLUMNIST
Mass controversy emerged when both the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau and NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, agreed to form a pact to ensure collaboration between the two parties. This, in turn, will provide security for the government of the day— most contend that this will keep the Liberal Party in power until 2025. Most have labelled this as a coalition, however, this falls short of what this deal is. A coalition requires collaboration between two or more political parties in governance. Trudeau is not inviting the NDP to collaborate on governance but instead ensuring stability and confidence in the House of Commons. Of course, Singh is not being altruistic; there is a motivation. After all, the last election demonstrated his disdain for Trudeau. While most point to the fact that the NDP hopes to gain influence in
matters relating to climate change and indigenous peoples, it is my belief that a large contributor to Singh’s willingness to collaborate is his party’s inability to go through elections like the Liberal or Conservative Parties. Elections are costly and the government of the day is closer to the NDP in values than the alternative. This makes the pact a strategic position for both parties, but what are the ramifications of this pact? How does it change Canadian politics? This pact poses a few problems. The first problem concerns Trudeau. While most contend that he has secured himself majority confidence in the House, he has actually shown himself to be more vulnerable than ever. This pact indicates a plea to the NDP to ensure that the government of the day remains in power, which actually makes it more dependent on the NDP than ever before. This argument could be coun-
tered by the claim that this pact is just a formalised assurance of security and supply for the government. This is certainly true and I do not deny it. However, by making it so formal, Trudeau is signalling the demise of his mandate. He cannot move forward without such a pact in the same way that he did in 2015 and 2019. The second problem this pact poses is that it will diminish the autonomy of the NDP and, in turn, mitigate Singh’s power. He will certainly be able to push for NDP influence in the government’s policy, but this comes with a caveat. If the NDP withdraws support for this pact for a reason such as scandal or disappointment, it follows that it will implicate itself in the government of the day’s mess. Singh cannot simultaneously take credit for pushing forth his policies on the government agenda and then remove himself from it when there is a scandal or policy
fails. He has now made himself a stormy-weather friend to Trudeau. Naturally, such a position negates the NDP’s autonomy within the House of Commons. The third problem that this pact poses is that it dilutes left-wing ideology in federal politics. If Singh is actually able to push forward NDP influenced policies, then it can be said that the Liberal Party will move further left. Such a pendulum swing to the left will likely divide the Party between leftists and centrists. A division within the Liberal Party poses two possible scenarios: one, the Party will have less internal support and consistency, which thwarts the efforts for stability and confidence in the House; and two, the centrist core of the Party will likely defect to the Conservative Party. Of course, the second scenario assumes that the Conservative Party would be able to return to an “open-tent” approach to party politics. This might
be a generous assumption. Overall, the government of the day is now dependent on NDP support and the NDP has conceded a degree of autonomy from the government. This pact may provide security and stability in governance until 2025, but it is at the expense of both parties’ power. The government of the day, ironically, will find itself in a far less secure position than the pact intends. Trudeau will have to steer clear of being too leftist and too centrist: If Trudeau swings further left, this will divide the Liberal Party in future and further upset the Conservative Party; if he is too cautious, then the NDP will withdraw support. Therefore, he is in an impossible position that has only further decreased his power. This pact, in turn, is a double-edged sword for the NDP, which will test Singh’s leadership. All things considered, when it comes to this pact, the Emperor has no clothes.
