Should goverment in Canada keep good foreign relationship with iran?

Should Government in Canada Keep Good Foreign Relationship with Iran?
Name:
Course:
Tutor:
Date:
Introduction
Days after Canada as an independent state announced the decision to cut its official relations with Iran, there were mixed reactions from different quarters. The allies and advocates of the current government appeared to be quite enthusiastic about the decision as they supported it openly. On the other hand, various foreign policy analysts publicly aired out their displeasure at the decision and the timing. A good number of them were quite displeased with the manner in which this was done. A senior government official who is attached to the foreign affairs office, just abruptly arrived at the Iranian embassy in the country’s capital delivering a mail indicating that the Iranian diplomats were no longer welcome in the country. The mail further went ahead to inform them that they only had five days to leave. At that same time, Canada’s diplomats were already packing ready to live the Iranian territory with immediate effect (Canadian Press, 2012). Obviously, Israel and its leadership were the first people to applause this move claiming that the country had set an example to the world that had to be seen as a courageous step towards protecting the security interest off the world. The Israeli Prime Minister specifically stated, (2012) “We have to build a wall, not of silence, but of condemnation and resolve. And Canada just put a very big brick in that wall.” Critics may disagree with this fact, but it obviously holds some ground. The government mentioned a number of reasons why this action had to be taken. The minister for foreign affairs mentioned “this was due to Iran’s support for the Assad regime in Syria; refusal to abide by UN resolutions on nuclear proliferation; anti-Semitic rhetoric towards Israel; human rights violations; support for terrorism; and, disregard for the safety and protection of diplomatic personnel” (Muller, 2012). The Canadian government should not keep good relations with Iran because the latter is a threat to the world peace, and disrespects human rights.
Canada’s decision was a bold one that obviously surprised many people. Various prominent voices spoke against the move terming it stupid. They raised the fact that the move would undoubtedly thwart any likelihood of further relations with Iraq whether pleasant or not. They held the opinion that the action had minimized the country’s options that had the capacity to quash a flare-up (Schwartz, 2012). Despite all this concerns, it must be noted that the unsolved problems between Canada and Iran go back, about seven years ago, the two countries were in the middle of a serious confrontation. The source of the problem was the detainment of a journalist with a dual Canadian and Iranian citizenship. The journalist at the center of all this was Zahra Kazemi. After it was reported that Zahra had passed on, the Iranian government issued a statement indicating that the victim had suffered from a stroke prior to her death. The Canadian government was not entirely satisfied with this report. They highly had doubts and were almost entirely certain that the cause of death was torture. Two years down the line as the victim’s anniversary was being marked, Canada was hopeful that justice would eventual prevail. They expected the Iranian government to ensure that justice was brought to the culprits. However, this was not to be as the Iranian government informed the public that an appeal regarding the case was scheduled to be heard. Mockingly, this was done behind closed doors. The Canadian government even went to the extent of meeting the UN rapporteur on violence against women in a bid to seek justice for Zahra (Mutimer, 2012). However, this still did not seem to bear fruits.
Iran intentionally continues to lag behind in the push to attain the global human rights goals. It is now time for the country to state categorically whether they are part of the global agenda to protect human rights or not. Human right is an international right that has to be accorded to everyone all around the globe irrespective of his/her race and ethnicity. It is becoming common knowledge that human rights infringements in the country are grave and ought to come to be controlled (Safdar, Lewis, & Daneshpour, 2006). Many Iranians may argue that there is undoubtedly little evidence to support this fact. However, the truth of the matter is that, the country is doing very little in terms of policy implementation and prosecution to protect this fundamental right. For instance, a couple of years after the Zahra incidence, the Canadian government proposed that an independent team of forensic specialists be put in place to conduct an autopsy on the victim’s remains (Mutimer, 2012). However, Iran’s minister in charge informed the Canadian government that it was now only up to Iran to ensure that normal relations between the two countries were reinitiated. Following the delay by the Iranian government to respond on this proposal, the Canadian government pulled out its participation from a trade affair that was organized by Iranian entrepreneurs. This presented the Iranian government the perfect opportunity they longed for to reject their proposal. Zahra’s case was now put to rest and thus there was no more interest in bringing the culprits to justice. They defended their action by mentioning that Zahra was an Iranian citizen. Despite the fact that she was half-Canadian, they believed it was within their jurisdiction to carry out investigations and that, they believed their institutions were competent enough to see this accomplished. They went further ahead and terminated the appeal that was earlier raised. Even though, in this instance Canada did not recall its diplomats and send packing the Iranian ones from their country, they implemented many steps that were obviously aimed at limiting relations between the two countries (Mutimer, 2012).
Many people might have had the opinion that the measures were so rushed. However, the truth of the matter is that, Zahra’s case had more implications of the relationship between the two countries than the measures implemented ever did. The case was not any common case. It was a precise depiction of the open violation of international human rights by a state. The case was in the public domain all over the world. Major news networks covered the story with the due diligence that it deserved, and the world was waiting to see the outcome. Zahra’s case was a make or break instance in the struggle for the protection of human rights. The delay in the resolution of the case is a significant setback for Canada and the struggle. The urgency of this case was evident in the way Canada invested many resources in seeking various avenues to ensure that justice was brought to the culprits and to Iran for violating human rights principles. For instance, they suggested that the case ought to be brought before the UN Security Council. Zahra’s case is evidence to the fact that Canada’s government does not have to do much to keep its relations with Iran (Mutimer, 2012). They need to stand their ground because this would be the only way to send a strong signal to the world that human rights have to be protected at all costs. Zahra’s case obviously shows that Iran is less interested in this goal.
Undoubtedly, relations between Canada and Iran have been sloppy for the past over three decades. In fact, the Canadian government has closed its embassy in Iran’s capital twice during this time. Iran today still remains considered the most noteworthy threat to world peace. In fact, the country has always exhibited obvious disrespect for the Vienna Convention. Considering the fact that Iran has always depicted the picture of an extremist in the way they carry out themselves, it is also crucial for the world to counter their actions extremely. This is a fundamental reason why Canada’s step towards cutting relations with Iran is an action in the right direction (Kingsm...