Canada’s arms sales policy is hypocrisy at its finest. In February of 2014, the Canadian government signed its “largest advanced manufacturing export win” in the country’s history. This deal offered the Canadian division of General Dynamics Land Systems the opportunity to build more than $10 billion worth of light armoured vehicles (LAVs) and associated equipment for Saudi Arabia. Shortly after, a multilateral international agreement known as the Arms Trade Treaty was introduced, with the intention of regulating international trade into conventional arms. The treaty intended to control the adverse impact created by the increased accessibility of weapons: the facilitation of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by security forces, non-state armed groups, and organized criminal groups.
And yet, Canada continued offering export permits to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), despite the nation’s extensively documented domestic human rights violations in the ongoing conflict in Yemen; a conflict that remains the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. It began in March of 2015, when Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates led a coalition of Yemeni states against Houthi forces to take over Yemen’s capital. The conflict has since spiraled, leading to more than 17,500 civilians killed and injured, and more than 20 million experiencing food insecurity. Canada has a unique role in the terrors of this conflict, as they are indirectly supplying arms to Saudi-led coalitions.
Canada’s opinion on the matter saw no overt problem with the arms deal, arguing that the export of arms to the KSA posed “no substantial risk” to the negative consequences outlined in the Export and Import Permits Act. This point is in contention with experts, citizens, and stakeholders. In fact, images of the armed conflict in Yemen show Canadian-made LAVs, fitted with machine guns, cannons, and sniper rifles from PGW Defence Technologies, a Canadian arms company, being used in the conflict. Presented evidence argues that “arms transfers to the KSA-led Coalition have exacerbated the armed conflict, thereby undermining peace and security.” Treaties and international law aside, does Canada have a moral responsibility to disengage from arms dealing with nations that use these weapons to increase global inequities?
Canadian moral responsibility on this issue exists outside doing what is ‘ethically right’. Rather, it exists in our governments’ responsibility to evade organizational hypocrisy. During the federal election in September of 2021, Justin Trudeau took a hard stance against Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole’s proposition of looser gun restrictions on 1,500 firearms. Trudeau argued that “these guns have no place in our communities and have no place anywhere in Canada.” If these firearms do not belong in Canada, why do they belong in the human rights conflict in Yemen?
For the Liberal Party of Canada, ending gun violence is a priority. The party’s website has explicit policies regarding toughening laws on banned assault weapons and setting aside a minimum of $1 billion to support provinces or territories that implement a ban on handguns across their jurisdiction. There is an inherent hypocrisy in a government that raises economic capital through arms dealership abroad while simultaneously using economic capital to end arms uses domestically.
Naturally, this article is not isolated in this opinion. All across the country, Canadians have made their grievances with the arms deal known. In January of 2021, activists in Ontario staged a protest outside of the transport company that is involved in the construction of the LAVs that get sent to Saudi Arabia. In March of 2019, several civil society organizations in Canada signed open letters addressed to Justin Trudeau calling for the rescission of the deal.
And, for a moment, it seemed as though these protests could create a positive change. In December of 2018, Trudeau announced that “Canada is looking for a way out of the Saudi arms deal.” The Liberal Party even chose to freeze the approval of new arms export permits as they waited for a review. However, the freeze was lifted in April 2020 under the guise that the deal would secure thousands of new jobs. Of course, this decision begs the question: are Canadian jobs more important than Yemeni lives?
Unfortunately, this type of hypocrisy isn’t uncommon in International Political behaviour. Organized hypocrisy refers to the circumstances where organizations create two sets of structures and processes that correspond to different norms. Countries’ leaders will ‘rhetorically embrace’ international norms, rules and roles, but then respond to domestic materialist imperatives in ways that contradict those same normative statements. All nations have norms they work to maintain. Canada cannot so easily pull out of its Arms Deal with Saudi Arabia without causing adverse normative impacts on the industries that supply these arms in the first place. Similarly, they cannot employ their normative identity as a peacekeeping nation when they directly contribute to war efforts abroad.
Maybe the problem is International Politics: that organizational hypocrisy is inherently embedded in the decisions that nations must make to satisfy international and domestic norms. This, however, does not negate Canada’s hypocrisy. As international actors, nations have a responsibility to ensure that decisions are not made only with self-interested concerns for economy, security, and power. Of course, it is not particularly new or noteworthy to report on politicians who engage in hypocritical behaviour. Joe Biden refuses to speak to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, yet continues the United States’ arms exports to the nation.
Conversely, nations like Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Germany have all reviewed or suspended their arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition; thus proving that the action is feasible. Ultimately, in the case where there are repeated violations of international humanitarian law, Canada must ensure the “protection of human rights and the advancement of democratic values” — a statement promised on their government site.
Edited by Yu Xuan Zhao
Claudia Velimirovic is in her fourth and final year at McGill University pursuing a major in honours International Development and a minor in Social Entrepreneurship. This is her third year writing for Catalyst and she is particularly interested in politics, gender inequality, and women’s health.