Connect with us

conflict

As war looms in Lebanon, will Canada be forced once again to evacuate “citizens of convenience?”: J.L. Granatstein for Inside Policy

Published

9 minute read

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By J.L. Granatstein for Inside Policy

It is too late to interfere with the pending evacuation from Lebanon, but we must consider what rights citizens living abroad in perpetuity can have.

Canada is preparing to evacuate Canadian citizens from Lebanon in case the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the well-armed, Iranian-backed terrorist organization, escalates into a full-blown war. Most of Lebanon’s southern border towns have been evacuated as have the kibbutzim and villages of Israel’s north. There are estimates that as many as 75,000 Canadian citizens may be living in or visiting Lebanon.

There is a precedent for an evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon. In 2006, Hezbollah and Israel engaged in a 34-day war that killed some 1,300 Lebanese and 165 Israelis and displaced 1.5 million residents of the two countries. The war ended after Lebanon, Israel, and Hezbollah accepted United Nations Security Council resolution 1701, which called for, among other things, an immediate ceasefire, and the withdrawal of all combatants from southern Lebanon.

There were as many as 50,000 Canadians in Lebanon at the time and Canada moved to get as many of its citizens it could reach – and who wanted to be evacuated – out to Cyprus or Turkey and on to Canada. Some 14,000 were evacuated by air or by sea at a cost that was later reported to be $94 million.

Almost no one asked in 2006 what were the obligations of the Canadian government to citizens living abroad. Many of these citizens had lived in Lebanon for decades, their only link to Canada being their passport. Consider Rasha Solti, who wrote in the Globe and Mail on July 22, 2006: “I hold a Canadian passport, I was born in Toronto when my parents were students there. I have never gone back. I left at age 2.” Solti’s passport was her escape route to Canada if she ever needed it. Did Canada owe her and others like her anything? And while there are no hard numbers, as many as 7,000 of the evacuees reportedly returned to Lebanon after the cessation of fighting.

Obviously, the government has some responsibility to assist Canadians caught up in a conflict. But what about citizens of convenience – those who renew their Canadian passports every five or ten years without visiting, let alone living, in Canada? What duty does Canada have to help Canadian passport holders who have not resided in or paid taxes to Canada for decades – if ever?

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade studied the 2006 evacuation and its report in May 2007 touched on this issue. A Department of Foreign Affairs official responsible for consular affairs told the Committee that “Until further notice, within the framework of the consular service, a Canadian is a Canadian; the rule is very clear. However, you are right, the debate has been launched and the discussion will take place.”

Well, no real public discussion took place. There were, however, conversations within the federal government, and the nation’s Citizenship Act has been amended several times since 2006. But there are still no residency requirements to remain a citizen. Should there be?

An amendment in 2009 instituted the “first generation limitation” that restricted the scope of those eligible for Canadian citizenship for the future. Citizenship by descent would henceforth be limited to one generation born outside Canada. This law was subsequently deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Superior Court in December 2023, and the government now has a bill before Parliament that will grant citizenship to eligible foreign nationals whose parent(s) have a substantial connection to Canada and are impacted by the first generation limitation.

In other words – unless the courts subsequently define “a substantial connection” very narrowly – Canadian citizenship can be passed on for generations to those living abroad.

This summer Ottawa is again preparing to evacuate Canadians from Lebanon. The government has bolstered its embassy staff in Beirut and deployed Canadian Armed Forces personnel to Cyprus where they are working with allied nations to coordinate evacuation planning. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Global Affairs Canada, and the Canadian Embassy in Beirut have all urged Canadians to leave at once. It’s unknown how many people have taken this advice, but clearly Canada is preparing for a major evacuation if the fighting escalates.

Is it not long past time for Canada to consider what rights are appropriate for those who choose to live abroad? Many permanent residents living outside Canada, as in Lebanon, hold dual citizenship. Should they require genuine ties in or to our country to retain their citizenship and their passports?

Before 1977, Canadians who acquired another nation’s citizenship, except by marriage, lost their Canadian status. Until 1973, Canada required those who wanted its citizenship to renounce their former allegiance. A 1993 parliamentary committee questioned the meaning of loyalty when people held dual citizenship, and it suggested that this devalued the meaning of Canadian citizenship. The committee, in fact, recommended that a Canadian who voluntarily acquired another citizenship should cease to be a Canadian. What the courts might to say to efforts to implement such measures today is unknown.

Still, the Foreign Affairs official in 2006 was correct: A Canadian is a Canadian. But perhaps there is another way to limit the use of our passports as a public convenience. In the United States, all Americans, no matter where they live or how many passports they carry, must file an income tax return as a fundamental continuing obligation of citizenship. Essentially, the US says that those who want to enjoy the benefits of citizenship must help to pay the costs of running the government, and those who don’t want to pay must renounce their American citizenship. This applies to Americans living in Canada.

Washington’s regulation is both reasonable and right. Holding a US passport carries certain obligations. We need to find ways to impose similar obligations on Canadian passport holders living abroad.

In Yann Martel’s famous phrase, Canada is the greatest hotel on earth. He meant that as praise, but to many it has come to imply that they can enjoy the benefits of this country without sharing in the duties and obligations of citizenship. In other words, you can check in, enjoy the facilities, and then check out without paying the bill.

It is too late to interfere with the pending evacuation from Lebanon. But now it is time to consider what rights citizens living abroad in perpetuity can have. It’s time to fully examine whether dual (or triple or multiple) passport holders can remain Canadian citizens. Time at last for a hard look at what Canadian citizenship means in the 21st century.


J.L. Granatstein taught Canadian history for 30 years and was director and CEO of the Canadian War Museum. He sits on the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s Research Advisory Board.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

conflict

Trump has started negotiations to end the war in Ukraine

Published on

For the first time since Russian soldiers entered Ukraine in February 2022, the US is negotiating with Vladimir Putin.  Surprisingly it’s not President Biden’s team at work, but President Elect Donald Trump.  Trump has been working through Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban.  President Orban traveled to the US to meet with Trump a day before he had an hour long phone conversation with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Clearly Trump is looking for at least a quick de-escalation if not an all out end to the conflict in Ukraine.  Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris of The Duran podcast explain the current situation.

Continue Reading

conflict

Sending arms to Ukraine is unnecessarily placing American lives in danger

Published on

U.S. President Joe Biden signs the guest book during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the Ukrainian presidential palace on February 20, 2023, in Kyiv, Ukraine

From LifeSiteNews

By Bob Marshall

Joe Biden’s direct military support, coupled with ignoring peace efforts and sidelining containment principles, could spark global conflict.

To understand why a congressional budget fight over continuing or possibly expanding the Ukraine-Russia war is so fraught with dangers, some background of the relevant history and politics must be considered.

Ukraine-Russian hostilities

On February 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin initiated what he designated as his “special military operation.” He undertook this action in Ukraine which was an extension of the hostile acts that started in February 2014 with a U.S.-supported coup of the Ukraine government. But, recall that Putin approached Biden in late December 2021 through mid-February 2022 with proposals to forestall or avoid Russian military action mainly centering around assurances that Ukraine and other countries would not join NATO, an expansion policy which had its proximate beginnings at the end of the Cold War right after the reunification of Germany.

Putin did not approach Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky with such proposals because the United States, and specifically President Biden, was the sine qua non for making such a decision regarding Ukraine’s entrance into NATO both for the U.S. and NATO. Basically, Biden told Putin there was nothing to talk about, especially with regard to reaching any agreement on Ukraine not entering NATO.

Biden rejects Ukraine-Russia peace agreement

Biden and British Prime Minister Johnson refused to accept bona fide peace agreements reached and worked out between Ukraine and Russia during the first weeks of this unnecessary conflict achieved  with the assistance of Israel’s 13th prime minister, Naftali Bennett. Former Fox News commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote that Biden and Johnson urged Zelensky to reject a more than 100-page peace treaty, “each page of which had been initialed by both sides, and its essence accepted by the Kremlin and by Kyiv,” and that by trusting the U.S. and Britain for military assistance, eastern Ukraine could be protected and Ukraine would not have to make concessions to Putin.

For these reasons, Biden and Great Britain own this war and bear partial responsibility for the Ukraine, Russian, and other lives lost as well as other war costs incurred after the treaty’s rejection.

So, American, Russian, and Ukrainian citizens now suffer the political, economic, and military consequences of the myopic and imprudent judgments of Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, and perhaps much less so by Volodymyr Zelensky who apparently believed promises of continued economic and military support from Biden and Johnson.

Biden trashes Kennan Containment Doctrine

Containment worked! America avoided nuclear war.

Direct U.S./NATO Attacks on Russia

The headlines, of course, say that “Ukraine fires UK-made missiles” and that “Russia says Ukraine attacked it using U.S. long-range missiles.” Not so fast. Zelensky may have given the order to fire, or maybe even pushed the buttons, but the White House needs to explain to the American voters who paid for these weapons, who guided the missiles to their targets in the Russian homeland, and why it is not constitutionally and morally irresponsible for Joe Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer to risk a much wider or even a worldwide nuclear holocaust to call Vladimir Putin’s bluff.

On November 24, Rebekah Koffler, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official, told Fox News that “we are now on the escalation ladder inching towards a nuclear war. Those ATACMS do not fire by themselves.”

Even if Ukrainian soldiers technically pushed the button, “the targeting of the weapons systems, ensuring that there is a proper flight trajectory of the missile, that it destroys the right target, and the actual battle damage it achieved that we wanted it to achieve, all requires U.S. personnel and U.S. satellites. This is why the Russians have stated that the United States and European targets are now in the crosshairs. In every wargame that we conducted back in the intelligence community ended up in a nuclear war.”

This is direct engagement.

In September, Vladimir Putin explained why a decision like Biden’s is radically different from all other “redlines.”

[T]his is not a question of whether the Kiev regime is allowed or not allowed to strike targets on Russian territory. It is already carrying out strikes … using Western-made long-range precision weapons. … This can only be done using the European Union’s satellites, or U.S. satellites. … [O]nly NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems. … Therefore … It is about deciding whether NATO countries become directly involved in the military conflict or not. If this decision is made … this will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia.

Biden finesses radical policy change

Biden has still refused to take public ownership of his radical departure from George Kennan’s Cold War containment policy of communist powers when he committed the one cardinal sin of American diplomacy: authorizing the direct military attack of a nuclear opponent, however “small.”

The initial press coverage from the Associated Press on November 17 announced that President Biden had authorized Ukraine, for the first time, to use U.S.-made long-range missiles for use by Ukraine inside Russia, “according to a U.S. official and three people familiar with the matter…. The official and the people familiar with the matter were not authorized to discuss the decision publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.”

The stark refusal of even one Biden official to put their name to this monumentally dangerous and radical policy change is astonishing. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) noted on X that, “Joe Biden just set the stage for World War III[.] Let’s all pray it doesn’t come to that[.] Otherwise, we may never forget where we were [t]he moment we received this news.”

AP also noted that “Biden did not mention the decision during a speech at a stop to the Amazon rainforest in Brazil on his way to the Group of 20 summit.”

Press disguises Biden policy switch

Biden’s “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” approach to not acknowledging the political-military consequences of his own actions was received with favorable “silent” coverage from the nation’s compliant mainstream media.

Indeed, none of the following news organizations told readers that Biden has converted American military personnel and civilian employees into warfighters who are directly engaging Russian troops, equipment, buildings, and territory by his direction: Associated PressNew York TimesNBC-WashingtonLos Angeles TimesBloomberg NewsABC-NewsPublic BroadcastingSeattle TimesMinnesota Star TribuneMiami Herald, and The Hill.

Checking the White House, the State Department, and the Defense Department websites for this period reveals no press releases, fact sheets, or acknowledgments about the unprecedented and radical missile policy change with Ukraine or any of its particulars. However, Biden’s White House website posted a note on November 20 expressing sympathy with the Transgender Day of Remembrance but is silent on the possible escalation toward World War III.

Even a week later, National Security Advisor John Kirby still did not acknowledge that Biden has authorized direct attacks on Russia in obvious disregard of Kennan’s successful policy of avoiding nuclear war by avoiding direct military to military conflict with nuclear powers. Below is an exchange between National Security Advisor John Kirby and a reporter at an “on the record” press gaggle:

QUESTION: In the past, you kind of downplayed [the] potential impact of the ATACMS on the battlefield and warned that allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russia could lead to escalation by the Kremlin. How do you see it now?

KIRBY: Right now, they are able to use ATACMS to defend themselves, you know, in an immediate-need basis. And right now, you know, understandably, that’s taking place in and around Kursk, in the Kursk Oblast. I’d let the Ukrainians speak to their use of ATACMS and their targeting procedures and what they’re using them for and how well they’re doing. But nothing has changed about the – well, obviously we did change the guidance and gave them guidance that they could use them, you know, to strike these particular types of targets.

Biden’s war escalation ladder

At this point, in light of the grim statistics about a completely avoidable war killing and maiming young men and women, Americans are entitled to the truth, not to a rehash of tired legalisms about Ukraine’s right to defend itself.

On November 25, Judge Andrew Napolitano cited 27-year veteran former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, a frequent guest on Napolitano’s “Judging Freedom” podcast, as confirming that Biden made the decision to let Ukraine use the ATACMS missiles without any input from his Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, which is highly unusual.

Biden and weakening Russia

Previously, Austin admitted on April 25, 2022 that the point of the war is “to see Russia weakened,” and Zelensky told The Economist on March 27, 2022, that “there are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.” As Leonid Ragozin wrote in May 2024:

The West has crossed many red lines and is willing to try even more, but it is impossible to predict how the close-knit group of criminally inclined individuals which rules Russia will act if their country begins losing. It has always been a tough proposition to play chess with a guy who is holding a hand grenade. And it makes no sense, as Biden’s predecessors knew very well during the Cold War.

Biden initiated direct but “lower level” hostilities with Russia on November 19, and Biden ally, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, followed suit with similar hostile bombardments of Russia on November 20, partially fulfilling the goal of British and American war hawks attempting to push Russia into larger hostilities under Biden’s lead, or that of his “handlers,” to turn the second cold war with Russia – the aspirations of Washington and London’s armchair generals – into a conflict more likely in their minds of bringing Putin into a more contentious and uncontrollable situation that would relieve Putin of power.

This article is reprinted with permission from the Family Research Council, publishers of The Washington Stand at washingtonstand.com.

Continue Reading

Trending

X