Saudi arms deal: Better possible, but not chosen

While better may always be possible, better may not be the preferred option for those who fear the self-examination that improvement requires.

Few understand this fact more intimately than the federal Liberal government; few things have revealed it more nakedly than the Liberals’ behaviour throughout the $15-billion Saudi arms deal.

By refusing to throw out a lawsuit against the government, this week a judge ensured that details of Saudi use of Canadian-made weapons will be released: we’re about to learn more about what the government has learned about itself. But we already know rather a lot about the ways better has been possible, but not chosen.

Was it possible, for instance, for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a former Liberal foreign minister to do better by demonstrating enough basic respect for human life to refer to LAVs as what they are, deadly weapons, rather than what a small child in a sandbox might imagine them to be, like “jeeps” or “fancy trucks?”

Well, yes. But that would have required possessing the maturity to acknowledge the potential implications of the government’s choice, which could theoretically include complicity in murder.

Was it possible for the government to do better by following Canada’s own export rules and refusing to sell arms to a human rights abuser that might well abuse them?

Sure! But that would have required believing the Liberals are not above the rules.

But was it possible to do better by living up to the spirit of its commitment to an international arms treaty rather than hiding behind the technicality its signature had been promised, but not given?

Naturally. But that would have required the government bear the costs of honouring commitments it makes rather than merely look good for making them.

Was it at least possible to do better by admitting the deal was not in fact done before the Liberals took office, as they claimed, but rather, they authorized the export permits?

Of course. But that would require having the humility to acknowledge the line separating good and evil does not fall neatly between Trudeau and Stephen Harper.

Then was it possible to do better by admitting it didn’t authorize the permits on a matter of principle (because isn’t it after all supposedly deeply concerned about human rights principles?) or to help stabilize the Middle East (because come on) or to protect student exchange programs (this is becoming too stupid to rebut), but rather to duck blame for losing factory jobs?

On this point, too, there is no question.

But to even suggest the Liberal government makes decisions for the sake of political expediency would require it to cede the moral high ground. And if the Liberals don’t have the moral high ground, or at least the appearance of it, they don’t have much.

And so, finally, is it conceivable that it was ever possible — was there any chance? — the Liberal government could have done better by offering the public a transparent examination of cutting arms deals with unapologetic human rights abusers rather than waiting for it to come out in court? For the last time: yes. Though it has been immature and dissembling and has skirted its responsibilities and failed to honour its commitments and believed itself to be above the rules, these are not insurmountable issues. These are issues most governments (and most people) must intermittently face.

But that’s the issue. Even when the government seems to be facing them — announcing a probe — it isn’t. The investigation only launched after footage emerged of Canadian-made weapons used against Saudi citizens; findings weren’t released.

The Liberal government will not openly acknowledge it needs to do better. No one can hope to do better if they won’t say they need to.

Better is always possible. We ought to believe that, both because it is true and because to believe anything else will destroy what could be great before it begins.

But for the Liberal government is better truly the goal?