No. It’s a hollow gesture that hurts us, not them
Canada’s light armoured vehicles contract with Saudi Arabia is a tempting target for our anger and frustration over the horrific murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the kingdom’s record as a chronic human rights abuser.
As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said, Canada has principles and there have to be consequences for Saudi actions.
The military truck deal is the most visible and uncomfortable aspect of a relationship that is already strained, so why not move on that?
I get the sentiment, but I don’t see what would be achieved, in practical terms, by cancelling this contract.
Canada is rightly concerned by the events in Turkey and Saudi Arabia’s human rights record in general, but the armoured vehicle deal has nothing to do with either.
Canadian military sales to Saudi Arabia (and others) are governed by a strict export control regime that has strong provisions regarding human rights.
Canada has been selling light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia for more than 25 years and there is no evidence they have been employed to violate human rights in Saudi Arabia or Yemen.
Cancelling this contract would open the field to countries who are far less concerned about how their equipment is used.
How does that advance the cause of human rights in Saudi Arabia or Yemen?
I recognize the desire to punish Saudi Arabia for its egregious behaviour in Turkey, but why should Canada and Canadian workers carry the burden?
Cancellation would irk the Saudis, but the leadership would brush it off and find new (albeit, lower quality) suppliers.
Canada’s reputation as a reliable commercial partner would be damaged.
The Trudeau government understood this when it agreed to respect the deal signed by the previous government.
Canada, as Trudeau noted then, sticks to its word; its signature on a commercial deal has to be trusted.
That still applies, despite the Khashoggi murder.
Cancellation of the deal would only serve to punish the 3,000-plus Canadian workers in the London area who will see their high-skilled, middle class jobs disappear for a gesture with no consequences in Saudi Arabia.
But it’s a matter of principle, people argue.
Forfeiting economic benefits would surely send an important and credible message — never mind the fact that those “economic benefits” being sacrificed have names, families and mortgages.
If it’s about messaging, what is that message and to whom are we sending it? It will be lost on the Saudi leadership. Selling them armoured vehicles is not a favour we are withdrawing. It is a commercial transaction. The message they would hear would be, “So, you don’t want our $13 billion? Fine, someone else will.” What does that achieve? If we want to send a message to the Saudis, why don’t we just speak directly to them? Engage, rather than disengage. Cancelling the vehicle deal would register with human rights groups, journalists and others in Canada who have long opposed it (or, frankly, any dealings with the kingdom).
Like-minded groups in the international community will applaud our commitment to principle (with many simultaneously seeking to fill the supply void we leave).
I wonder, sometimes, whether that’s the point.
Canada’s profile as a progressive and principled country is important to our self-image.
Many Canadians don’t want us in the arms industry at all. For them, military sales are immoral. That these exports bring real benefits to Canada, or that they contribute to our strategic interest in a secure and stable Saudi Arabia is immaterial for many.
Fair enough. Principles are important in diplomacy and in politics.
But it strikes me that a government’s main responsibility — its core principle — should be the advancement of Canadian interests and prosperity.
The Saudis have a talent for shooting themselves in the foot.
Their legitimate reform efforts, for example, have been indelibly tainted by the Khashoggi murder.
Is the best response from Canada really to emulate the Saudis by administering our own-self-inflicted wound as a hollow gesture that hurts us, not them?
Cancelling the light armoured vehicle deal would do just that.