Well, the election season has come and gone andStephen Harper is the new Prime Minister, thoughwith the support of only about one third of theelectorate, how long he remains so is a question upin the air. The contradiction between the vastmajority of Canadians who wish a progressive,socially liberal society and the radical andregressive conservatives who make up asignificant portion of Harper’s support presents avolatile mix for Mr. Harper to manage.

One issue to watch is the relationship betweenCanada and the United States, a relationship thatcooled off considerably during the administrationof George W. Bush. Polls over the past few yearshave indicated that about two thirds of Canadiansare opposed to the policies of Mr. Bush,particularly his penchant for aggressive, pre-emptive warfare, and disdain for internationalagreements and cooperation.

In the past Mr.Harper has been at odds with most Canadians,advocating for closer ties to the U.S. andsupporting Bush’s military adventurism, includingthe war in Iraq where he thought Canadian troopsshould have been sent. How he manages now that heis actually responsible for Canadian sovereigntyand the lives of the members of our armed forcesis something that many Canadians will be watchingclosely.

The dust had barely settled in the polling placesafter the election before Harper had his firsttest in this area when U.S. Ambassador David Wilkinschallenged Canada’s claim to its territorialArctic waters. Harper stated that he would defendCanada’s sovereignty in the north, but whetherthis is only empty rhetoric remains to be seen.

Perhaps Mr. Harper should lay out in no uncertainterms that passage through Canada’s northernwaters must require permission and anacknowledgment of Canada’s authority in the area,and that any vessel failing to do so will beconsidered hostile and taken into custody by forceif necessary.

Now that the issue has been broughtto the forefront by the Americans, to do any lesswould certainly weaken Canada’s claim to thenorthern waters, and set a bad precedent for othersovereignty issues that may arise.

Something else that Mr. Harper could do that wouldsit well with many Canadians — probably more thanthe number who voted for him — would be to draw adefinitive line in the sand concerning wars ofaggression and rogue military actions takenwithout the consent of the international community.One way to do this would be to put in place apolicy of providing refuge to people fleeing frompersecution because of their refusal toparticipate in such military activity.

This wouldimmediately benefit several hundred members of theU.S. military and their families now in Canada whohave fled here to avoid being part of the warcrime in Iraq. It would also serve notice to theworld that we really do believe in the importanceof international organizations and in multi-lateral problem solving rather than the bruteemployment of force.

Sixty years ago, at the end of one of the mostdevastating wars in history, the victors, Canadaamong them, held trials in Germany and Japan topunish those who were guilty of starting the warand committing what have been classified as warcrimes. The conduct of those criminals involvedaggressive attacks on other countries, and in thecase of Germany attacks justified with lies. Theyinvolved concentration camps, brutal treatment ofprisoners, and terrorizing of civilians.

Today in Iraq, we have a war started by the UnitedStates and Britain based on lies. We havehundreds of people held in camps outside thescope of the law and without civil rights. Wehave numerous incidences of abuse of prisoners andthousands upon thousands of terrorized, maimed andslaughtered civilians. To frost the cake we alsohave profiteering and corruption. Crime oozesfrom this enterprise at every pore.

A precedent was set in those trials in the 1940sthat committing these crimes was not to betolerated, and that obeying orders was not adefense. The scope of culpability was not limitedto members of the military and government; thosewho profited from the crimes were also indicted.As a result it is now the responsibility of everyperson to avoid the commission of, abetting, orprofiting from war crimes, orders notwithstanding.

If we truly believe that obeying orders is nodefense for war crimes, and if we oppose wars ofaggression carried out in defiance ofinternational structures, and stand by theprecedents set in Nuremberg and Tokyo, then wehave an obligation to aid those who refuse toparticipate.

Where Mr. Harper stands on this issue, time willtell. Will he stand up for Canada and the valuesembodied in its international agreements andactions all the way from the end of WWII to theestablishment of the new International CriminalCourt? Or, will he seek closer ties with the warcriminals?