Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has revised his position on the controversial US-Israeli military strikes against Iran, acknowledging potential breaches of international law. Speaking to reporters in Sydney during a three-day visit, Carney explained his initial support was driven by the nuclear threat posed by Iran, which he described as “the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East.”
However, Carney emphasized that this did not provide the Trump administration with a “blank cheque” to act unilaterally. “It appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law,” he stated, while also noting that it is up to the US and Israel to determine the legality of their actions.
International Law and Military Engagement
Under the United Nations Charter, the use of military force is justified only in self-defense if a country is under attack or if the United Nations Security Council has authorized it. The US and Israel have justified their strikes by claiming they aim to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Despite this rationale, Carney admitted that two decades of negotiations and diplomatic efforts, including sanctions, had failed to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.
“And now the United States and Israel have acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting with allies, including Canada,” Carney remarked, highlighting the unilateral nature of the strikes. He characterized the ongoing conflict in the Middle East as a “failure of the international order,” urging for a “rapid de-escalation of hostilities.”
Humanitarian Concerns and Diplomatic Efforts
Carney condemned the continuation of strikes on Iranian civilians, which have persisted following Iran’s retaliatory bombings of nine countries. He implored “all parties, including the US and Israel, to respect the rules of international engagement.” Emphasizing the importance of diplomacy, he stated, “Diplomatic engagement is essential to avoid a wider and deeper conflict. Innocent civilians must be protected, and all parties must commit to finding enduring agreements to end both nuclear proliferation and terrorist extremism.”
In stark contrast, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have refrained from commenting on the legality of the strikes. Legal and human rights experts have previously informed SBS News that the US-Israeli justifications do not meet the threshold for an armed attack under international law to justify such force of defense.
Australia’s Position and Future Implications
Prior to Carney’s speech, Wong reiterated Australia’s lack of involvement in the strikes, stating, “The legal basis of these strikes is ultimately a matter for the United States and Israel.” She reiterated Iran’s failure to comply with UN Security Council resolutions regarding its nuclear program.
All eyes are now on Albanese, who is expected to stand alongside Carney in Canberra on Thursday. Observers are keen to see whether his language will mirror that of his Canadian counterpart. In a previous statement at the World Economic Forum in January, Carney emphasized the role of middle powers in global politics, stating, “Middle powers must act together because if you are not at the table, you are on the menu.”
This development follows a complex history of international negotiations with Iran, as well as ongoing debates about the role of international law in military interventions. As the situation unfolds, the global community watches closely, anticipating potential shifts in diplomatic strategies and international alliances.
