International Law Revisited

In a previous post I discussed the controversy of Cheney visiting Canada. Because Canadian law permits the country to arrest people suspected of war crimes, activists suggested that it was necessary for authorities to detain the former vice-president upon his arrival.

Now, with an upcoming visit on October 20 to British Columbia scheduled by former President George W. Bush, the same type of calls to action are coming out.

Bush has admitted, sometimes proudly, to the use of (under his authorization) waterboarding and other forms of torture that are illegal under international agreements. Due to this reasoning, Bush previously cancelled a trip to Switzerland due to calls for his arrest and rumours that victims would file complaints against him.

According to Human Rights Watch, Canada can charge Bush for torture even without his presence in the country because one of the victims was a Canadian citizen. However, his presence in the country gives authorities even more reason to detain him.

In the previous post I questioned what would become of Canadian-American relations if they were to bring charges against such prominent American political figures. Although I still believe this to be one of the most key issues, I have also now noticed the polarization on the topic. Most of the official statements as well as comments on the online news articles are either calling for authorities to take action or claiming that the activist organizations have lost their minds.

For example, Immigration and Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney suggests that Amnesty International (one of the groups calling Canada to take action), “cherry picks cases to publicize based on ideology." He questions why the group did not seek a court order barring Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

This sort of dialectic makes me wonder why more more moderate action isn't just taken such as barring Bush's entry into Canada. I suspect that this still would not be an ideal solution and would still hurt Canadian-American relations, but is a strong compromise.

This story is gathering even more attention in light of the "Occupy" protests. A group in British Columbia posted on their Twitter page:

"When WAR CRIMINAL Bush comes to Surrey October 20th, we will meet him with a FLASH OCCUPATION. Expect us"

I question whether this sort of issue really relates to the Occupy movement, but also, doesn't a "flash occupation" imply surprise and spontaneity? Not days of advanced notice? I wonder if this visit is being called out by various organizations simply to bring attentions to themselves.

More reasonably, the Occupy group asked the Mayor to cancel Bush's visit.

I think that the strong oppositions in this controversy highlight the fact that there is no easy compromise. An interesting article in the Canadian newspaper The National Post, sets up a question and answer format discussing what options Canada truly has and the contentions related to Bush's visit.

- Danielle Foster