P Kharel

Stretching an issue might be alright but pushing things too far snaps the string. That is why they say don’t try cornering a cat, lest the resultant claw scratch proves very painful. An outlet or escape route eases tensions. Similar is the case with statements and announcements states make. Letting loose the tongue can boomerang with unexpected lashings of a bruising variety. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau might be the latest in the lineup of leaders who went overboard in disapproving a protest campaign. After making a disparaging remark on truckers opposing mandatory vaccination, his personal security became a matter of serious issue.

Trudeau and his family members, in a very hush-hush manner, left their home in the Canadian capital in January for a secret location amid security concerns caused by 50,000 irate anti-vaccine truckers’ march in Ottawa not long after the prime minister dismissed them as a “small fringe minority”. The rally was held in front of Trudeau’s office and other state institutions in February.

That the prime minister of a constituent of the Five Eyes (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States) had to go hiding on account of the perceived security threat to the nation’s No. 1 family showed the gravity of the situation. Earlier this year, Canada and the United States declared a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all foreign truck drivers crossing the border between the two neighbouring countries. The rally received participatory support from thousands of other protesters furious over the stipulation and other causes the government did not address.

Risk & caution
United under the banner of “Freedom Convoy”, the truckers saw themselves as fighting for their freedom and hence against mandatory vaccination, though 90 per cent of the Canadian population are already vaccinated. Theirs was a call for free choice and no intrusion into an issue entirely personal. Both Canada and the United States imposed the requirement that could affect as many as 32,000 out of more than 160,000 Canadian and American cross-border truck drivers who wanted to cross the 7,800-km border, the world’s longest.

At first the police sounded tough. However, as the protestors’ line kept growing and the sound of determined defiance strengthened, the police revised its tactics to ensure that provocation was to be avoided as far as it was practical. Caution was considered the better part of tactics in dealing with the situation seen as “fluid, risky and significant”. After 10 days of the protest, the Canadian capital’s mayor declared a state of emergency citing the threat to security and safety on account of the situation having gone “out of control”. Some days later, the movement fizzled out but left some scars which for long could seek answers from the power elites.

The Ottawa incident reminds that when an issue touches upon multilateral or ideological matters in any country, conditions get more complicated. The dominant wants the less powerful to keep itself to size: Don’t overstep, when it comes to military initiatives. The unwritten diktat is to confine a weaker state to its informally assigned size, strength and space.

Some WW II victors and pillion riders shared the spoils of war, as reflected in the manner in which the United Nations Security Council was constituted, with five members — each allocated permanent seat and veto power that can squash any proposal or initiative. The concept of full-fledged democracy in the functioning of the world’s largest body of independent states got severely compromised.

More than 75 years down the times, the discrepancy will slowly but surely be discussed frequently in the ensuing times. Status quo benefits the victors and ensures the vanquished to atone perennially for their errors by playing second fiddle to the dominant group. Whereas interim arrangements and emergency provisions might be acceptable to address special situations, they should not acquire the status of permanent features.

Commenting on the guarded approach, Germany took regarding the issue of weapons supply to Ukraine, the British news outlet Guardian carried a piece suggesting that read: “Guilt over Nazism’s crimes is affecting Berlin’s approach to Moscow — and that equivocation has frustrated its allies.”
One scribe commented that Germany’s allies in Europe and the US feared that Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government was stuck and lost in passive ways of the past. In fact, it is much of Europe and the US together with Australia and Canada, among others, which hesitate to encourage or allow Germany a lead role of the military type during invasions like the 2001 intervention in Afghanistan or the 2003 invasion in Iraq.

Stuck in the past
What those nations want is Germany to throw its full weight behind them. They envisage a Germany as a team member for action scripted and directed by the US, the United Kingdom or France — all veto powers at the UN Security Council. For Germany’s potential for emerging as a superpower is always there. Stuck in the memories concerning its role in the two World Wars, Germany’s role is constricted. The dominant among NATO members want it to take a back seat for as long as they wish. Germany attributes its reluctance to sending lethal weapons into conflict zones to historic

reasons
Germany’s Socialist Democratic Party leaders point out that by not supplying weapons to Ukraine would leave the door open for Germany to play a mediator’s role between Russia and Ukraine. Though not said in many words, Austria, Greece, Italy and Spain initially found themselves uneasy about the move to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine. After all, Russia suffered the biggest loss in World War II.

The very powers at the forefront in supporting Ukraine over the perceived threat from Russia were by and large responsible for the 2003 invasion of Iraq under an unfounded pretext that was exposed as hollow when no weapons of mass destruction were found in the invaded oil-rich country. While the initial argument that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan allowed Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda troops to operate from in that country seemed to allow the benefit of doubt, the foreign troops’ overstay and the disaster Afghan civilians suffered for 20 years gave a full view of the other side of the coin.

The world is witness to dozens of once highly popular and democratically elected leaders petering out to be authoritarians once in the seat of power and intoxicated by the trappings and influence associated with high office. Likewise, some of the nations rated as the most democratic and well-governed are also known for their overbearing, self-centred and authoritarian approach to other nations, particularly those that dare to differ and defy their agenda.

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)