We’re still friends, right?
With Harper so wrong about Arar then, why so righteous now?
BY Scott Piatkowski
Photography by Jason Reid/Reuters
Given Stephen Harper’s recent efforts to distance himself from the wildly unpopular Bush Administration, his remarkable change of heart on the case of Maher Arar shouldn’t have been all that surprising.
Starting with the contrived low-level anger that he and Public Affairs Minister Stockwell Day expressed regarding the Americans’ stubborn refusal to remove an exonerated Arar from a terrorist watch list, and culminating with a compensation deal and Harper’s public apology to Arar in late January, the Conservatives have gone out of their way to present themselves as vigorous defenders of Arar’s rights.
In October, Harper indicated that he wanted “the United States government [to] come clean with its version of events, to acknowledge … the deficiencies and inappropriate conduct that occurred in this case, particularly vis-á-vis its relationship with the Canadian government.” Harper complained that the American actions in Arar’s case “violated what we understood to be the protocols for such communications between our two governments” and expressed hope that “these kinds of incidents will not be repeated in the future.”
The White House must have been wondering what had happened to Harper, someone who the Washington Times had—not without cause—once predicted would be “Bush’s ideal foreign leader.” American Ambassador David Wilkins called the comments “presumptuous.” He and his bosses must have been even more vexed to hear Harper apologizing to Arar and his family “for any role Canadian officials may have played in the terrible ordeal that all of you experienced in 2002 and 2003.” At the same time, Harper also announced $10.5 million in compensation to Arar (plus an undetermined amount for legal fees).
Harper and Day also confirmed that they would continue to work to clear Arar’s name with the Americans, who are facing their own lawsuit from Arar (now under appeal, having been initially dismissed on the grounds of “national security”). Harper insisted that, “We believe the evidence is clear that Mr. Arar has been treated unjustly,” while Day indicated that “the issue won’t be closed.”
As tempting as it might be for Canadians to applaud Harper for these long-overdue actions, he can’t escape responsibility for his own role in Arar’s detention and torture. When Monia Mazigh, Arar’s courageous wife, invited MPs to a candlelight vigil on Parliament Hill, she recalls one Alliance member’s office replying, “Get a life.” Then there were these appalling statements in the House of Commons (quoted here with minimal edits for length, to minimize deniability):
Stephen Harper: “While the minister participated in high level consultations to defend a suspected terrorist, it apparently took a trip by the U.S. Secretary of State for the minister to admit what he really knew.”
Stockwell Day: “Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister gave an evasive answer concerning Maher Arar and his possible terrorist ties. As members know, a few months ago, the Minister of Foreign Affairs proudly announced that there was no reason to deport Mr. Arar. Now we know that the RCMP had received warnings about Mr. Arar weeks, perhaps months ago.... There is lack of vigilance in the country on terrorism.”
Diane Ablonczy: “It is time the Liberals told the truth: That their system of screening and security checks is pathetic. Arar was given dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship by the government. It did not pick up on his terrorist links and the U.S. had to clue it in. How is it that the U.S. could uncover this man’s background so quickly when the government’s screening system failed to find his al-Qaeda links?... Why is it that the Liberal security system is so weak here that they overlook vital information that the U.S. picked up on a routine check?”
Alex Neve, secretary general of the Canadian branch of Amnesty International, has pointed out that these denunciations played a key role in encouraging Liberal foot dragging on ensuring Arar’s release. “If the Liberals had been any more active than they were at the time, I think the [former Canadian Alliance] would have been apoplectic.” Largely because of the political climate created by Harper, “the Liberal government at the time was very slow to wake up to the kind of concerted, high-level action that was necessary and was finally taken.”
In responding to Harper’s apology, Arar indicated that “there’s no amount of money that would compensate me on what my family and I have gone through. I wish there was a way I could buy my life back.” It is equally true that no amount of money—and no apology or tepid complaints to the U.S. government— can make up for the actions of Harper and his party at the time of Arar’s detention.
