NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
COMMENTARY
December 17, 2005
Who decides?
Let us put this plainly and triumphantly: this week’s general election in Iraq, with its huge turnout even in places like Fallujah, is an incomparable vindication of the “Bush doctrine”. Once again, it has taken an event of such magnitude to break briefly through the cloud of media coverage, which has dwelled in gloomy detail on every setback along the way. Even our CBC was showing pictures of the exultant crowds; even the BBC allowed that something good had happened; before quickly changing the subject. And from what I can follow, the imagery of Arab people celebrating an Arab democracy was also briefly flashed across the Arab world, via networks such as Al Jazeera.“Can our troops come home now?” is the question that must be in the minds of so many Americans whose households have contributed directly to the Iraq mission. It depends partly on the strength of the Iraqi government coalition that will begin emerging about two weeks from now, when the vote count is complete. But yes, the worst is over, and Iraq becomes a project for the Iraqis alone. As the election showed -- both through the campaign and in the vote itself -- real progress has been made against the insurgents, and the political means for Sunni, Shia, Kurdish and other community leaders to hash out their differences has been set in place. At least 20,000 U.S. troops will be withdrawn in the near future, with proportional cutbacks among their allies. But no responsible U.S. government will, in the foreseeable future, draw down the U.S. presence substantially. Western troops in Iraq are not there only to secure Iraq’s infant democracy. Iran, under the presidency of a madman; Syria, under the presidency of a more conventional butcher; and Saudi Arabia as nursery for Islamist fanatics -- all require containment. Iraq replaces cold-war West Germany as the forward base against totalitarianism; and Iraq has itself become the new indispensable ally. Two generations of American politicians had to maintain the political will to keep “fortress Germany” manned. I pray their successors will be as resolute in maintaining the new commitment. * Turning back to our own election, I was brought short by the French debate of Canada’s party leaders, in Vancouver Thursday. The big moment was Stephen Harper's vow not to use the Charter's "notwithstanding" clause should Parliament rescind "same-sex marriage". In other words, if he forms the government, he will call a free vote on the issue, then leave the courts to overturn the result at their leisure and pleasure. So he is now playing both sides of that issue -- playing gratuitously to the gallery of "same-sex marriage" opponents, who have no other major party to which they may turn; but with a wink to assure the “gay lobby” that anything he does will be inconsequential. This on top of his previous assurance that, in effect, unrestricted abortion is now a "sacred trust" in Canada -- or at least, something with which no Harper government would ever dream of meddling. A serious Conservative leader would instead have declared that he is prepared to use the "notwithstanding clause", not only to repeal “same-sex marriage”, but repeatedly -- on every single government bill if necessary -- to get the courts out of the legislative business, and restore the authority of Parliament. Confronted by the Grits' growling media footpoodles, he could smile like Trudeau and say, "Just watch me!" The Conservatives should have begun immediately after the last election, making the urgent case against court-written law. For that, in the end, is even more important than “same-sex marriage”. It is a direct threat to democracy in Canada, that cannot be ignored. From the polls, Mr Harper could have had well over half the Canadian electorate solidly behind him. He had only to sound the trumpet eloquently. Of course what I recommend is controversial. There is no “middle way” between moral, legal, and constitutional positions that are truly irreconcilable. In a democracy, the people make these controversial, but necessary decisions. When the courts, instead, are empowered to decide, we have an ex-democracy. We look to Iraq to remind ourselves that there are politicians who, even if we suspect them capable of corruption, will put their lives on the line for democracy itself. And then we look back to Canada, at Mr Harper: a decent, probably incorruptible politician (in the narrowest sense), who is all brain and no spine; a wimp in the face of a few howling gliberals and leftoids. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top