Canada’s Severing Ties with Iran: A Counter-Terrorism Maneuver?

By Hilarie Henry, Staff Writer

Was Canada giving Iran’s Canadian embassy the pink-slip and pulling the plug on its own Tehran embassy a smart move?  CUSLI-Nexus staff writer Hilarie Henry explores how Canada’s diplomatic severing with Iran follows Canadian counter-terrorism strategy, didn’t cost Canada much, and may just be a template for other nations to encourage Iran to change course when it comes to its suspected terrorism ties and alleged desire to produce nuclear weapons. 

On Friday, September 7, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister, John Baird, announced that Canada closed its embassy in Tehran and had given Iranian diplomats in Canada five days to leave.  Canada also listed Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, allowing Canadians affected by Iran-supported terrorism to sue for damages.  In doing so, Baird claimed that Iran is the world’s “most significant threat to global peace and security.”  In addition, he listed a slew of reasons for the closings.  Among these reasons included Iran’s: (a) lack of safety concerns for Canada’s diplomats, epitomized during an attack last November by a crowd on the British Embassy in Tehran; (b) “blatant disregard for the Vienna Convention and its guarantee of protection for diplomatic personnel;” (c) providing arms to the Assad regime in Syria; (d) assistance to terrorist groups; (e) noncompliance with United Nations resolutions concerning its nuclear program; (f) appalling human rights record; (g) and threatening behavior towards Israel, such as engaging in racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and inciting genocide.  This entry will examine whether the embassy closings were in line with Canada’s newly adopted counter-terrorism strategies. 

Overall, Canada’s counter-terrorism approach has focused on risk pre-emption by “allowing risks to be dealt with on . . . an a priori (deterrence) basis rather than . . . a post facto (firefighting) basis.”  On April 27, 2004, Canada adopted a new anti-terrorism strategy with its Securing an Open Society: Canada’s National Security Policy.  This policy places an emphasis on “public safety,” in order to de-politicize its anti-terrorism efforts.  Under the “International Security” heading, the Policy states that, “Canada will continue to play an important role in countering international terrorism, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and defusing key intra- and interstate conflicts.”  In addition, Canada’s International Policy Statement (April 2005) helped to further criminalize and de-politicize Canada’s anti-terrorism efforts by emphasizing that “within the broader context of the Government’s counterterrorism strategy, Foreign Affairs makes a unique contribution.” 

Then on February 9, 2012, Canada launched its Building Resilience Against Terrorism: Canada’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy.  This Strategy’s aim is “to counter domestic and international terrorism in order to protect Canada, Canadians and Canadian interests” through four mutually reinforcing elements: prevention, detection, denials, and responding.  Prevention focuses on the “factors . . . motivat[ing] individuals to engage in terrorist activities.”  Detection emphasizes the identification of terrorists and their plans through intelligence operations and possessing a “solid understanding of the changing threat environment.”  Canada’s goal is to deny terrorists any opportunities by fixing areas of vulnerability and “aggressively intervening in terrorist plan[s] . . . making Canadian interests a more difficult target for would-be terrorists.”  Lastly, in the event of a terrorist attack, Canada wants to have a rapid and organized response that will reduce the effects of such an attack.

Canada now finds taking a firm stance against terrorism and nuclear weapons so serious that it is willing to risk the following consequences.  In particular, by severing all diplomatic ties with Iran, Canada will find it difficult to gather intelligence and monitor Iran’s increased uranium production.  Yet some argue that the closure will not make much of a difference in these areas. They assert that Canada’s embassy was already understaffed at eight people. Therefore, the embassy already could only provide consular support, little effective diplomacy, and minimal intelligence gathering.  While this might be true, it is hard to argue that a small embassy is worse than no embassy at all.  Doug Saunders, Chief of the London-Based European Bureau of the Globe and Mail explained that, “Closing an embassy is rarely done even in moments of hostility.  By its very nature it prevents the possibility of further relations with the country in question, good or bad, influential or ineffective . . . once you’ve pulled the plug, you’re out of the game.”  Whereas, Munk School of Global Affairs director Janice Stein supports “Canada’s firm stand against Iran,” arguing that “as this crisis [between Canada and Iran] deepens and as time begins to move on the nuclear clock, signaling intentions very clearly and firmly at this point is . . . a good strategy.” 

Another cost of the embassy closure Canada seems prepared to endure in order to prevent terrorist attacks on Canadian interests, is the abandonment of its citizens in Iran.  Namely, many Canadians are currently caught up in the Iranian justice system, three of whom are currently on death row.  These people have been directed to contact the embassy in Ankara, Turkey.  The embassy closure will inevitably cause hardships for Canadian citizens in Iran.

While Canada could have criticized Iran through other means, like the UN, summit meetings, or bilateral relations, one cannot argue that Canada acted consistently with its terrorism policies. The closing of the Canadian embassy in Iran delivers a strong message of disapproval toward states aiding terrorists and constructing nuclear weapons against UN stipulations.  Thus, Canada’s decision is in line with the National Security Policy and Building Resilience Against Terrorism Counter-Terrorism Strategy.  With the deteriorating relationship between Canada and Iran, and Iran’s lack of safety measures for embassy personnel, Canada’s decision to close up shop is a pre-emptive act to stave off risks to its civilian embassy employees.  This adeptly follows Canada’s “public safety” and pre-emptive counter-terrorism strategy, placing it ahead of the curve, rather than being forced to respond to an attack against its diplomats after the fact.

Canada’s demonstrated willingness to aggressively crack down on those supporting terrorism through its foreign affairs channels by closing the two embassies has given muscle to its counter-terrorism strategy.  Doing so conveys in concrete terms that, “building resilience against terrorism is a priority for [Canada’s] government.”  On a larger scheme, if other states follow in Canada’s diplomatic/counter-terrorism footsteps, perhaps Iran will be forced to deter from its alleged terrorist-supporting and nuclear bomb-building ways.

Monday Morning News Round-Up: The Housing Bubble, What's On Parliament's Agenda, Fossil Fun, B.C. Mayor Summit, and the U.K.-Canada Embassy BFF Agreemnt

Some attention-grabbing Canadian headlines.

Canada’s Housing Bubble Is Bursting—and This Time We Mean It!  Canadian Business on why, this time, Canadians really should worry about the housing bubble:

People have been predicting a crash in Vancouver for years, of course. What’s different now is the growing number of trends suggesting its imminence. The poor global economy is souring foreign investors’ appetite for expensive property overseas. The federal government, meanwhile, is trying to tame the market by tightening mortgage lending standards and warning the public at every opportunity that Vancouver is a risky city for buying real estate. Interest rates are still low, but the Bank of Canada keeps promising to raise them, which would quickly lower affordability. All of which leads David Madani, an economist with Capital Economics, to conclude: “The Vancouver market has cracked.”

Vancouver won’t be the only one. The next market to crack will be Toronto, starting with the city’s overheated condo segment. Overall sales of existing homes were down by 12.4% this August over last, and condo sales have fallen by double digits for three months in a row. The pre-construction condo sector is also weakening, with sales down 21% in the second quarter. Overbuilding is a major concern: a record 52,695 units are currently under construction, with another 35,000 in the pipeline, a rate that economists say is well ahead of demographic trends in the region. Investors also play a big role in the Toronto condo market, raising concerns that waves of them will try to cash out at the same time.

The Talk of Ottawa this Week (and Beyond).  The Hill Times lays out the Parliamentary schedule in brief here.  Items on notice:  house committees will meet to elect their chairs, some criminal law debates, and the Senate talks conflict of interest and Canadian language rights in the Facebook-era.   To get the low-down on this parliamentary session’s ‘hot topics,’ read the Library of Parliament’s 41^st Parliament Current and Emerging Issues.

Fossil Fun.  A group of scientists exploring the world-renown, fossil-filled Burgess Shale preserves in Canada's Rookies has found a new bevy of fossils! For fossil lovers, this is big news:  the newly discovered site might be the most important ‘fossil find’ in the last three decades, reports the Calgary Herald.

BC Mayors Talk ‘Tax Fatigue’ (and Marijuana Decriminalization) at Victoria Meet-Up.  Mayors from British Columbia (B.C.), drained for cash but swamped with federal demands to provide public services, are gathering today at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention, reports the Vancouver Sun.  This isn’t just a group therapy session:  the mayors will be sharing ideas on how to prioritize public services, and get more bang for their buck (along with some less heady topics--scroll down for more.  From the Vancouver Sun's report:

“Spending has gone up for local governments over the past 10 years but predominantly because the province and federal governments are asking more of local governments through policies or regulations,” Moore said. “It affects everything from core utilities to police services.”

The convention comes on the heels of a business taxation report that suggests provincial and federal government decisions have had negative financial implications for local government.

The report by an expert panel also suggests the province doesn’t have any more money to dole out, Moore said. But he takes heart in a recommendation that the province work with municipalities to find alternate forms of funding to provide services.

“We really feel there hasn’t been a lot of cooperation,” he said.

Learn more about the Convention—whose annual theme is In Conversation—at the Convention’s website.  Right now, the Convention is likely wrapping up its Marijuana Decriminalization debate (assuming a bit of real-time lag-time from the published schedule available here). 

Canada and the United Kingdom Become Embassy BBFs.  In a cost-cutting and diplomacy-maximizing move, Yahoo! News Canada reports that the U.K. and Canada will agree today to sharing one another’s embassies in nations where one nation has an embassy and the other does not.  But not everyone is thrilled with the move.  From yesterday’s Globe and Mail:

Paul Heinbecker, the former Canadian ambassador to Germany and permanent representative of Canada to the United Nations in New York, warned that the relationship with a former colonial power in many parts of Asia and Africa could be a net negative.

“We have an incompatible brand with the U.K.,” said Mr. Heinbecker, citing past disagreements, including Canada’s support for sanctions to fight apartheid in South Africa, and Britain’s reluctance to get involved in Bosnia militarily.

The agreement, according to sources, will include not just sharing real estate, but working together in other areas – representing civilians abroad, providing passports and visas, and dealing with emergencies such as revolutions, disasters and evacuations. The two countries will not share diplomatic representation, sources said – so British diplomats would not present Canadian views to foreign governments, or vice versa.

Recycle Journalism: Brian Stewart Rebrands Vague Former CSIS Official's Quote to Offer 'Sleeper Cell’ Theory to Explain Canada’s Iranian Embassy Closure

Editorial*
by Keith Edmund White

Brian Stewart yesterday made a bold theory: that concerns over Canadian-based sleeper cells may have caused Canada to shut down Iran's embassy in Ottawa.  But guess what?  It's not his theory--but rather that of former Canadian Security Intelligent Service assistant director Ray Boisvert (who never said "sleeper cell"), while talking on CBC television.  Boisvert's vague statement was then recycled by the CBC's Daniel Schwartz in an CBC.com article two days ago.  All Stewart added were the words "guerrilla cell" and cloak a very vaguely worded concern from Boivert with a piece of public testimony regarding suspect Iranian sleeper cells by a top U.S. intelligence official eight months ago. The result?  Suddenly this non-story from Monday is grabbing headlines Wednesday.  If all of this sounds like a house of cards, that's--well--because it is.  The CBC should stick to reporting news, rather than recycling a vague quote for 48 hours to attract readership.

CBC News reporter Brian Stewart made waves yesterday by implicitly suggesting that Canada shut down the Iran's embassy in Ottawa because Canada suspected the embassy was supporting Canadian-based Iranian "guerrilla cells."

Naturally, other news-organizations took his painfully organized and confusing article and ran with it.  But these organizations changed "guerrilla cells" (whatever that means) to "sleeper cell" and "sleeper cells."

iPolitics's take on Stewart's story:

Still with the Middle East, Canada's sudden decision Friday to close its embassy in Iran and to give the bum's rush to Iranian diplomats in Ottawa appears to have been prompted by credible intelligence, said Brian Stewart of the CBC. He said the embassy in Ottawa is suspected of creating and handling a network of sleeper cells in Canada that could launch terror attacks in the event Israel, Canada's close ally, launches a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The ambassador, Kambiz Sheikh-Hassani, denies any allegations of wrongdoing by his staff.

Macleans, actually citing the article, highlights the pertinent section of Stewart's piece.  But guess what Macleans title is?  Were we worried about an Iranian sleeper cell?  From Maclean's provocatively titled, quote-recycling piece:

Brian Stewart offers a theory on the Harper government’s decision to cut diplomatic ties with Iran.

I believe Harper acted on new intelligence. But the warnings were likely more about the Iranian embassy activities in Canada than they were about the safety of our personnel abroad. Indeed, the sheer number of reasons given for the diplomatic break may mask the true one: Iran’s aggressive use of diplomatic cover to prepare guerrilla cells to attack in the west should Iran itself be attacked.

Western intelligence has been ringing top-secret alarm bells for governments for over a year, warning of an extraordinary build-up of Iranian personnel in Europe, Africa and particularly in Latin America, many of them believed to be linked to Iran’s notorious Quds Force. That’s the elite arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, tasked with “extraterritorial operations.” Iran has powered up its diplomatic arm in the Americas, from a handful of embassies a dozen years ago to 10 today, along with 17 “cultural centres” in various countries. Most posts are staffed with far more officials than required for normal duties – 150 in Nicaragua alone. In January, America’s top intelligence official, James Clapper, publicly stated that Iranian diplomats abroad were setting up sleeper cells designed to attack U.S. and allied interests around the world in the event of war.

Now Macleans is correct to reiterate Stewart's claim is only a "theory." Stewart offers no direct evidence for any motive behind Canada's closure of the Iranian embassy.  Instead, Stewart (1) points out that Canada hasn't shut down embassies in the past save for grave circumstances, (2) highlights DNI head James Clapper's January public statement that Iranian diplomats were setting up sleeper cells to attack U.S. and U.S.-allied interests, and (3) a quote from former assistant director of Canada Security Intelligence Services Ray Boisvert.  This is what Boivert said:

Boisvert insisted the Iranian embassy was “running some kind of threatening operation aimed at the Iranian community in Canada that absolutely poses a security threat in Canada."

But Stewart did not get this quote himself.  It was first written by Daniel Schwartz on Monday, who was merely summarizing a CBC television segment that Boisvert was on.

So, let's boil this down.  CBC airs a (presumably) live segment on TV with three experts discussing why they think Canada may have closed the Iranian embassy.  One panelist says something that could be construed as a possible sleeper cell worry (without ever using the words "sleeper" or "cell").  A CBC writer then writes a summary, burying this quote half-way through his article.  The next day, CBC reporter Brian Stewart slaps on 'his' "guerrilla cell" theory--while ever so careful to hide the source of his information at the bottom of his article.  Why?  Because he knows his theory, if fairly presented, looks pretty flimsy.

Naturally, it would have been 'amateurish' for the CBC to call Boisvert up, clarify his quote, perhaps obtain comments from other relevant sources on the topic, and then write an accurate report.  That process is otherwise known as journalism.  Instead, CBC took the 'professional' route of publishing Stewart's theory.  In return, they've grabbed readership by triggering frightful headlines throughout Canada.

That's what I call solid journalism.

*This is a personal editorial by Keith Edmund White.  As such, it does not reflect the views of CUSLINexus, other CUSLINexus writers and staff, or the Canada-United States Law Institute.

U.S. Ambassador to Libya, 3 Staff Killed In Rocket Attack

In news that will reverberate on the international stage and U.S. campaign trail, U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, along with three American staff members, were killed in a rocket attack in Benghazi, Libya.*

As reported by The Guardian, with gunmen storming the U.S. embassy in Libya, Stevens left the embassy and was being moved to a more secure location by car when a rocket struck the vehicle.  Protests erupted in Libya over a amateur film that negatively depicts the prophet Muhammad and was then dubbed in Arabic and excerpts posted on YouTube.  The protests led to gunmen storming the U.S. embassy in Libya, which apparently triggered Stevens to be moved from the Libyan embassy to a safer location.  The rocket attack took place on the streets of Benghazi while Stevens and his staff were being transported.

The film has also triggered protests in Egypt, where the U.S. embassy has also been stormed.

Photos of both U.S. embassies attacks can be found here.

Note:  The Guardian provides live news updates on the attacks here.

*Please note that this post is merely a summary of previously published reports on a developing story.