Host: Canada says it stands for human rights, but foreign policy rarely runs on principles alone. Prime Minister Mark Carney recently said Canada must deal with the world as it is, not as it should be. He was explaining Canada's stance towards Iran and efforts to stop the country from obtaining nuclear weapons. At the same time, Canada is deepening ties with countries facing serious human rights allegations. That includes $1 billion critical mineral agreement with the United Arab Emirates, a country accused of supporting a paramilitary force in Sudan that has killed thousands of civilians. And Prime Minister Mark Carney has been willing to make deals with China, despite its record on human rights and allegations of foreign interference. So how consistent is Canada's foreign policy? And when values collide with economics and geopolitics, what drives the decision? That's where we're going to start. And later we get an update on the war in Iran and the effects it's having across the globe. Welcome to The Rundown.

Host: So if Canada says it's guided by values but keeps making deals with countries accused of violating them, how should we understand that? Bessma Momani is a professor of political science at the University of Waterloo and a senior fellow at the centre for International Governance Innovation. And Michael Taube is a columnist for several publications, including the National Post, Troy Media and Loonie Politics Mikal. Thank you for joining us in studio.

Bessma Momani: My pleasure.

Host: Thank you so much for joining us online. Now, I want to start with you, Michael.

Michael Taube: Sure.

Host: Prime Minister Carney's speech at Davos.

Michael Taube: Yes.

Host: Signalled that Canada would be a pragmatic, calm voice, right. In a rather chaotic world at the moment, of course. Yet many see his support of the attacks on Iran as a departure from that. Your thoughts?

Michael Taube: Well, I don't think very much so. Yes, I agree with you that Davos was the way it was. I wrote in the National Post, which didn't get a lot of lot of great coverage on it, that I thought it was fine, but I didn't think it was this outstanding piece of great journalism. We have had great speeches from prime ministers in the past, conservatives and liberals both. It was fine. It did. It did the trick. He got what he accomplished from it. And that's perfectly okay. In the issue of Iran. I think you have to look at it a little differently. Firstly, we obviously, the relations with the United States and US President Donald Trump are very different than they've been with previous presidents, whether they were Republicans or Democrats. For that reason, you obviously have to have a bit of a balancing act, which to Carney's credit, I will admit he is trying to do as best he can, which is at times taking a position that Canada wants to be out of certain conflicts and doesn't want to be heavily involved, which, you know, would push people back to the days of Jean Chretien, the war in Iraq in 2003. It could be somewhat related to that. But in the same sense, he also wants to ensure that there is still a pipeline between Canada and the United States, no matter how difficult it is, and no matter what, people, including people who are watching the show today, actually think of Mr. Trump. And for that reason, I think he balanced it out as best he can, which is that Canada is irritated with Iran, which is a totalitarian regime. They are tyrants, they are evil people, and they deserve what's coming to them. But Canada wants to just leave it at that. So more words rather than action.

Host: All right. I want to get your take. Mikal says the best that Mark Carney can do. But is this a departure from his Davos speech to what we're seeing right now?

Bessma Momani: No, I mean, I agree with Mikal on the point that it wasn't an amazing speech, but I think it was what needed to be said at the time, what people wanted to hear. And that was really an important part. Part of this is that I think a lot of people heard what they wanted to hear. You could, if you want, take from the speech that it was sort of a defiance in favour of the the rules based international order. But I think what really stood out to me was the realpolitik of it all, that really we as Canadians have to start thinking about our interests, our interests, our interests. And that can sometimes come actually at the expense of some of our values and ideals. I mean, I would say that I think what Carney is trying to do is focus on what he's good at, which is getting this economy growing. This is an existential crisis that we're in with the trade wars with Washington. We have never, ever assumed that this relationship would be so sour. I think even in the heyday, as you know, I'm sure historians can say, I mean, even, you know, when Pierre Elliot Trudeau went to Washington, I think what we're seeing today is the worst of this bilateral relationship. And so I think what he is trying to do is keep that in mind at all times. And that's not necessarily going to make a lot of Canadians happy because we kind of got used to this, this moral high ground that, frankly, the Trudeau government often took, sometimes ad nauseam without a lot of, you know, a lot of a lot to back it up with. It was just words and rhetoric and not not much else. I think Carney is more cognisant of of what power we do have. And I think he's trying to play a very delicate balancing act on Iran. I actually think for him, the challenge was no one's going to, you know, really defend the regime here, but it's more important that the reality of having a strong diaspora community in this country that on the whole, I mean, not it's not consistent, but on the whole was supportive of some sort of intervention. I think that is an opinion that has soured tremendously since the war actually started, because of, frankly, the unbelievable calamity of of the critical infrastructure that has been hit the the death and killing of, you know, 160 schoolgirls. I mean, the mood in the diaspora has soured and changed. But, you know, at the beginning of this, keeping in mind, we've got this ally, our big elephant next door that we need to, you know, keep content. And we know Trump takes everything personal. So any sort of critique of the war would have really hurt us in some way or another. And then also the factor of our diaspora community that on the whole, generally we're supportive of some intervention. And again, I the caveat of I think that mood has changed significantly since then.

Host: All right. I want to pivot away from Iran for a moment. Let's look at a few examples of our foreign policy that has come under criticism. We talked about the economy growing. So I'm going to talk about some trade deals. Canada signed $1 billion deal with the United Arab Emirates last year, despite the country's alleged involvement in Sudan's ongoing civil war. Canada has signed trade deals with India and China despite allegations of foreign interference. Canada's condemned Russia's war on Ukraine as well an ongoing war there. Given all of this, Mikal, does Canada apply its foreign policy selectively?

Michael Taube: Yes, but I think you could say that most democracies do. I mean, unfortunately, politics is a game. It's one I've been involved in many years of my life. And as I said before, it has to be a balancing act. Sometimes you have to accept the fact that the actors or political actors you deal with are not necessarily your best friends every moment, so you have to balance it out as best you can. You use some good examples and people have also said China as well. You know, there's been an extensive amount of trade with that that was highly questionable based on years of issues that we had with the former prime minister, Justin Trudeau and the Liberal government. Related to that, I think you do things the best you can. And I don't you know, I'm obviously no fan of Mr. Carney, and I don't think the economy is as bad as saying I don't think it's going to be that great. But I recognize what he has to do. He's a far more competent individual than Mr. Trudeau. I would not argue that. And for that reason, he recognises by taking his experience as a bank governor or working in the private sector and applying it to dealing with people from Donald Trump to the UAE and others, he can actually make a good go of it. And with the UAE, I think that a lot of people are looking at that. With the issue of Sudan, you're quite right. At the same time, the UAE has been held in a very different regard in the West since they signed that deal, to sort of Recognize Israel and have better relations for a lot of Western countries. That was a sign that the UAE had, shall we say, turned the corner. And for that reason, people look at them differently. Should they? That's questionable, but that's what they're doing.

Host: All right. I'll follow up with you. But I want to get you in on this. Given all of this and what Michael has said, does Canada apply its foreign policy selectively?

Bessma Momani: Absolutely. And there's lots of hypocrisy throughout history. It's it's undoubtedly the case. I mean, if you think of this, let's just do this very mathematically. 85% of our trade is with the United States, right? What's left? 15%. And the truth of the matter is the areas and regions of the world and countries that are growing are not democracies are not necessarily like minded countries. This is not where we're going to make trade deals and where there are economic growth. So again, if we're going to put our interests first and foremost in the case, I think of Trump or sorry, of Carney, I think he is very keen and laser focussed on the economy. You can't discount countries like China and India and the UAE. These are countries with pretty impressive growth. And I get it for, you know, a lot of us who really do feel it's almost, almost a mythology Canadians have of ourselves that somehow we're above all of that. And, you know, we're just so righteous. It's really hard for us to come to terms with the reality that, wait a minute, we're going to do business deals with unsavoury characters. It's it's a reality, folks. I don't know how you're going to grow this economy and create those kinds of international partnerships without being honest to yourself, to say that the countries that are growing that we need to sign deals with are just not going to be like minded. And that's that's it. That's the reality. If if it's a bread and butter issue, then we sort of have to forego some of those ideals. And it's not a comfortable situation for Canadians because we we haven't been here before. We, we, we really did ride this beautiful, you know, white horse thinking that we were really above it, all of it.

Host: Michael, did you want to add.

Michael Taube: Sometimes Don Quixote is not great, but she's right. I agree entirely with what she's saying. And she's right. You have to look at it this way. Not to be a parrot, but 85% of our trade is with the United States. And obviously there are a lot of Canadians today who are very frustrated with US President Donald Trump and the way he's handling things, and we all understand that. Basma understands it, I do, you do, and all the viewers do at the same time. You just can't ignore them. I know some Canadians think you can and basically state that, well, Mr. Carney is looking for all these other deals. He's moving completely away from the US. He's moving partially away. Whether that's right or wrong is a debateable issue and something we might discuss today. But in the end, ultimately, Canada and the US have been longtime allies, friends, trading partners, military partners. We are indelibly tied to this country, whether people like it or not. And the key is which a lot of people still forget because there's still a few more years to go, is that Donald Trump will not be president forever. I know some people keep saying, King, it's not going to happen. Let's not be silly. He's going to leave eventually and there will be a new president, be it a Democrat or a Republican. We'll see what things are like, but it will be different. And that's what we have to keep in mind.

Host: With everything that's been said. Michael, is there a disconnect between the kind of foreign policy Canada wants versus what it has adopted? In what we've seen so far?

Michael Taube: Every government that's been in play, including Stephen Harper's government, who I worked for as a speechwriter, obviously we look at things very differently. You know, one easy example, and Lloyd Axworthy talked about it recently in his Toronto Star column, talking about the UN charter or the United Nations charter. There are a lot of people, not just conservatives like me, who have written or said for years that the United Nations is is a shell of its former self. It's not what the League of Nations once was, which was imperfect, but at least managed things with countries that were fairly like minded. The United Nations, if you look sort of the A, B, C's, the agencies, boards and commissions and the way that people, you know, countries that are totalitarian regimes, rogue states and others got on to things involving nuclear disarmament and whatnot, which Iran and Iraq were both two examples of. It drove people wild and drove people mad to the point where you thought you had to reform it. Mr. Axworthy, you know, with due deference to him, still believes that there is an important measure that the United Nations can do, and there are important things it can produce still in society. I'm less so of that thought, and I think a lot more conservatives are certainly like me. But some people on the left now Recognize that if the United Nations is not what it once was, for example, it means that the whole game has changed much the same way for Canada. We have to manage our own affairs differently as well. What what was past may not necessarily be present.

Host: All right. Well, I want to pick up on the comments about former Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy. This was something that he actually had had written earlier this year when talking about Iran. We invoke international law and the rules based international order when adversaries engage in unlawful actions but abandon those same rules entirely when it's the Americans, it goes on to say that it is recklessness. What are your thoughts?

Bessma Momani: It's not just recklessness. I mean, I agree with that point, but, you know, rules of engagement are necessary because it's what keeps us civil. At the end of the day, if we start, you know, practising might is right and not consider these rules that have been thoughtless, you know, thoughtfully thought out by so many jurists that include Canadian jurists who are instrumental in this whole process. You know, it becomes the law of the jungle. And you know, what's happening today is I mean, the fact that, you know, again, a school refineries, you know, this is unacceptable. These are not targets. And, you know, unfortunately, I think if we start to lose our morality in the the hype of war, I mean, some of the stuff that Pete Hegseth has said recently, and even Trump, the sort of, you know, the smiles and the actual joy they're getting out of all of these murders is unbelievable to me. And I think this dehumanisation that we've seen of the Iranian people, I mean, I'm sorry, with all due respect, Mikal, but calling them, calling them evil, I mean, we just can't use words like that. We have to be, I think, really cognisant that there is an effort to dehumanise in this war, in all war, and even in our own, you know, desire to want to point out that this regime is horrendous because the Iranian people know that first and foremost, we just can't use those kinds of words. And I'm afraid and I have no faith in the Trump administration and Pete Hegseth, I mean, calling this a Department of war, the again, that that very almost excitement and joy they get out of it. You see it in the speeches. And I can't help but I'm not a psychologist. I know a political scientist, but you just see the happiness they're getting out of the pain and suffering of others. This is just wrong. And so I have a lot of, you know, I have a lot of problems with the framing of how we're looking at this. And what I think Lloyd Axworthy was getting at is we need to really respect these rules. It's not right to have totalitarian regimes on human rights panels, to Michael's point that we saw throughout the UN, that's just not right. But we also have to be really careful in understanding that those rules are about keeping us civil in times where barbarity really has a way of, frankly, constantly, you know, wanting to shine out. We need to try to tamp that and focus on ensuring that those rules of engagement are actually followed through.

Host: Mikal do you hear those concerns?

Michael Taube: I know what I was saying, and I understand it. Look, the reason I use the word evil is I differentiate between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian people. The Iranian people are not the ones who have come over to this country, are peaceful, democratic, loving individuals who want to work in society for their families, for themselves. They are good people. They are frustrated by what they see overseas. They are furious that they cannot go home to their own country and that they feel unsafe. That's why I use it. But I take Bensmith point. I'm not arguing it. Obviously, you know, this is the way political people sort of are. We you know, we use our words in our in certain ways. But regardless, I know what she's saying and I understand what she's saying, but I think you have to call a spade is a spade. And unfortunately, that's just the world I come from. So if you think something is bad, you have to say it's bad. You can't say it's good. It doesn't mean that you can't find solutions. And there may be a solution, whether it be, you know, the Pavlov who is obviously been, you know, is is waiting hopefully to some come somehow come back, as he said, either as a temporary leader or as a leader of Iran or someone else from within internally, which Trump has actually said might be the best option. You have to look at it that way. So I don't have an issue with calling it evil, but I understand when people say that, and certainly it's a tense time. I get it.

Host: All right. I want to have a better understanding of what you think Canada's foreign policy approach should be. With everything that is going on right now.

Bessma Momani: Look, I get the the sentiment of wanting to be pragmatic, and I think that is the right choice. I think, you know, Carney emphasis on thinking about the economy being laser focussed on that is key. And actually this war, I mean, back to the what is in our interest, the prolonging of this war to the global economy is horrendous. I don't think we realise how terrible this is going to be on so many countries. I mean, you know, CBC had a wonderful piece about, you know, cooking oil being in shortage in India. We are looking at this is the plantation season for much of the West. And frankly, fertilisers are not going to be coming out of the Straits. This is this has never happened before. We've had so many flare ups, you know, in Iran and in the region. But to see the Strait of Hormuz completely shut, we haven't seen since the 1980s. So we were already on, frankly, unstable footing with high debt, you know, trade disruptions, a lot of uncertainty, as we all know, geopolitically. So this is just not going to be, I think, a good outcome for us and our interest to see the global economy humming again. We just simply can't afford it. And so I really do hope that there's an effort by, you know, the Carney, you know, government and folks around him to start focusing on our strategic long term interests of economic growth and to get this war done and finished. And I think it's going to be really hard because the off ramp don't seem to be there. And we all know that Trump administration is honestly very incompetent in executing this war, but even worse. So it's not just the execution, it's actually having an objective and then wanting to actually meet what is those objectives. He does not know what the outcome should be. He thought it was going to be a Venezuela three day turnover. And there will be a Darcy Rodriguez inside. You know, the the the Iranian regime who will say, yes, we'll just send you our oil and not our problem, you know, and bow to the master. That's not happening. And so I think we are in for a longer run because frankly, the incompetency in the white House just doesn't know what they're doing.

Host: The world is a very different place since you worked for the Harper government. No kidding. So I imagine the foreign policies that we would apply then would not apply now. But I do have to ask, if you had the ear of the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, Anita Anand, what would you be saying to her.

Michael Taube: Besides the fact she wouldn't listen to me? But yes, I guess I would say this, obviously when Stephen Harper, you know who I work for? My old friend and boss was prime minister, he actually made us more of a foreign policy leader than a peacekeeper. We still did peacekeeping. Nothing changed that way. But in Afghanistan, for example, we took the lead and we build you know, we helped women, we helped, we build water. We basically helped develop the country up to a certain point. You know, we're a middle, we're a middle power. We're not as big as other countries. There's only so much we can do in certain ways. I would like to see a balance of the two again. I've seen a lot more of a shift to peacekeeping, which is traditional. We know Lester Pearson and others obviously use that to their advantage, and that's perfectly fine. I think the best thing still is for can to be a foreign policy leader. And while the speech in Davos some people believed was an example of it, I don't because it's words you have to do it also with actions. So if I had Miss Annan's ear I would say to her, you don't have to do what Stephen Harper did before. I don't expect you to, but I would like more of a balance. And I think in the end, that's the way a middle power like Canada can have a real influence on the world scene.

Host: Well, you're going to have to leave it there. Michael, I really appreciate your time and your insights on this. Thank you.

Michael Taube: Thank you.

Host: Thank you.

Host: According to US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, the war with Iran is a great success.

Pete Hegseth: Every tool of AI, of cyber of space, E w counter, UAS, you name it, we're employing it. Blinding, confusing and deceiving our enemy.

Host: But there are serious questions about how the US and Israel are conducting this war. On February 28th, for example, at least 175 people, most of them children, were killed at an elementary school. An initial inquiry found the US was responsible. Our advanced tools like AI making accountability harder to pin down. And what kind of effects could this conflict have regionally and globally? Bessma Momani is a professor of political science at the University of Waterloo and a senior fellow at the centre for International Governance Innovation. Bessma, great to see you. How are you doing?

Bessma Momani: Doing well.

Host: Thanks.

Bessma Momani: This is Iraq all over again. It's a it's a phrase that's been repeatedly heard since the US and Israel attacked Iran, implying that this war, if it stretches on Iran, will be worse off than before. Your thoughts on that?

Bessma Momani: Well, I mean, there are a lot of similarities you can't help. But I mean, it's just so vivid to me, too, the war in Iraq. I mean, the one thing I think stood out was this idea, if you recall, in the Iraq war, you know, Ahmed Chalabi kept telling the administration at the time that, you know, they will greet us with flowers. And this was a, you know, basically a sentiment that the dictators fall will just usher in a wave of popular support in favour of the occupying power. And so I think we saw that analogy as well. And a lot of folks, including many members of the Iranian diaspora, were really hoping that this would be certainly that case. And there was some cheering on of intervention. But I think what Iraq has taught us is that, frankly, regime change is hard. You can't do it just from the air. It requires boots on the ground. And I don't think there's appetite for that in either the Israelis or the Americans, in the case of Iran.

Host: Help our viewers understand. Do the U.S. and Israel want the same things when it comes to Iran?

Bessma Momani: I don't think so. And we're getting a little more information now coming from both capitals. You know, I think Washington wants a quick victory war. I think that analogy of wanting to see a Venezuela type victory here again, really take out the leader in this case, you know, killing of Khamenei, and that there would be some sort of Darcy Rodriguez equivalent in, you know, akin to Venezuela coming out of the Iranian regime who could be working alongside and just really follow the commands of Donald Trump. And certainly still at it's oil, all that. I think the Israelis, on the other hand, and we've seen some reports coming out of of Tel Aviv, something to the effect of, frankly, the disintegration of Iran is fine with us. The idea here is to weaken it, and nothing makes it weaker than seeing the country disintegrate.

Host: You recently wrote in The Globe and Mail about the use of artificial intelligence in the war in Iran. You have some concerns around accountability. What are they?

Bessma Momani: They're huge concerns. And I think it's frightening because if anybody's been following what's been happening with anthropic and the Pentagon, you really get a full, you know, full disclosure here of of what is the internal battle? I mean, the Americans, I can't reiterate this enough. The excitement that is coming out of the Department of War and Pete Hegseth for this war is frightening. And they want to not be constrained by contractors and suppliers. In the case of anthropic, they have long had a rule in in their agreement with them to not allow fully autonomous weapons being used. In other words, you can't just from, you know, Command Central, say we're going to hit 1000 targets, which, by the way, this was the case, 1000 targets, no human in the loop. And, you know, be what may and and this is where, frankly, faulty information and faulty intelligence of the location of the school, it is now become very clear that that school that was hit on day one had not been updated in ten years. The intelligence that that school was no longer part of the adjacent military base. And this is why these errors happen, because there's no human in the loop checking to make sure that, you know, targets are not just accurate, but that they're worth it. And so again, there's a lot of fear I have and a lot of technologists who have been sounding the alarm that allowing AI and, you know, machine learning and other autonomous type weapons systems in war is when we start to dehumanise the other to the point of not seeing lives being lost there as anything but collateral damage. And we see this, you know, time and time again. And I'm very, very afraid of where we're going with this technology. If there's no regulations and guardrails put in place.

Host: You did mention boots on the ground. So I do have to ask, you know, some may argue that using AI could actually reduce the number of casualties in war by limiting the number of soldiers on the ground there. Does that complicate the picture? When we talk about accountability?

Bessma Momani: Very much so. But again, I think, you know, it's it's it's almost suggesting that, you know, the the boots on the ground are the only lives that matter here. And it's, it's frankly the other way around. We know that when there are complete aerial assaults with no human in the loop or no human quite literally making eye contact with so-called enemy or combatant were more likely to shoot and kill. And so there is a literal dehumanisation that psychologists talk about when these systems are used. And so this is why drone warfare tends to have such a high civilian count, because the person that is pressing the button, so to speak, far, far away, does not get to see, you know, the eyes of a person that they may be killing. And that's just the reality of war and human nature.

Host: I want to talk about the ripple effects that this war has had on the rest of the region. How will the Iran war affect, say, Gaza?

Bessma Momani: Well, I mean, Gaza has been out of the news. I mean, it's you know, it hasn't stopped and yet it's out of the news. And frankly, it's expanding into the West Bank. Israeli settlers and Israeli soldiers are depopulating the West Bank. Same thing is happening in southern Lebanon, and it's not in the news.

Host: Talk to me a little bit about the impact you talked about the refineries, the impact this conflict is having on Russia.

Bessma Momani: Russia is the key winner out of this. I mean, they got an exemption from the Trump administration to, you know, be able to sell their oil.

Host: Is this short term.

Bessma Momani: That's what they say. But this is not a conflict that's short term. I mean, you know, we've only been through this Strait of Hormuz blockage for a couple of, you know, days, maybe, you know, ten days a little more than that. But to get things back online again and to be back to quote unquote normal, we're looking at months. That's months of added revenue that the Russian regime now has to continue its barbaric war against Ukraine.

Host: We are going to have to leave it there. Really appreciate your insights on this. Thank you so much.

Bessma Momani: Thank you.

Host: I'm Jeyan. Thanks for watching The Rundown. What do you want to know more about? Email us at TheRundown@TVO.org or reach out to me on social media. And as always, let us know what you think. Until then, see you tomorrow.