Ransom for Diplomats

Seems we didn't get our money's worth when taxpayers footed the bill to release Robert Fowler from custody in the hands of an al-Qaeda offshoot. He, along with another Canadian diplomat, Louis Guay, had the misfortune, acting on behalf of the United Nations (though not dispatched at that time on a UN mission-related trip) in Africa, of being held for five months by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

But this is a man committed to Africa, who loves Africa, that dark, unknowable and constantly-failing Continent. Besides which, his experience classifies him as an 'expert' on Africa. One to be consulted, honoured and respected. Which is precisely what Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff did, imitating a lick-spittle, after Mr. Fowler castigated his party for lack of vision, in a speech where he took issue with Canada focusing on Afghanistan, not Africa.

Special envoy to Niger, that was his status at the time of his capture. He had plenty of time to think about the issues that consumed him, and Canadians did feel badly for the poor man and his colleagues, in captivity. Still, no one asked us if we were willing to spring him at an excessive cost to the treasury. And even though Prime Minister Harper equivocated, claiming Canada would honour its public policy of no-ransom, we know he did the 'right' thing.

Evidently the money was filtered through a European country on behalf of Canada. To ensure that Robert Fowler could return to his life in Canada, rejoin academia from his original springboard at Foreign Affairs, and honour the country with receiving the wisdom of his experience and his discriminating conclusions.

The money we handed over in taxes enriched al-Qaeda to an embarrassing degree. As well, four jailed mujahadeen were released from incarceration. Even Libya, formerly heavily invested in encouraging terror, lamented Canada's handover of hard cash to helping al-Qaeda expand its influence in the geography. Because al-Qaeda is no friend of Libya.

And Libya prefers to covertly fund the terrorists who bring misfortune to other countries, not their own. Al-Qaeda are free-enterprisers, targeting wholesale the Arab and Muslim countries ruled by tyrants who pile up their own oil-fuelled treasures selling to the West, infuriating Osama bin Laden. Who also would, if he could, create greater devastating impacts on the West.

So the Prime Minister submitted to the humanitarian impulse to rescue one of our own, only to unleash upon the country a righteous scold who takes no pride in his own country: "as the globe has become smaller and meaner, Canadian governments have turned inward and adopted me-first stances across the international agenda, and Canada's reputation and proud international traditions have been diminished as a result."

He had at least this in common with Mr. Ignatieff; both publicly and with relish expressing a belief that Canada, under the current Conservative-led government was not deserving of a seat on the UN's temporary, rotating Security Council. That the seat went to Portugal instead, despite Canada's strenuous and costly lobbying must have been a source of great satisfaction to Fowler.

Whose disgust with Canada for officially supporting the State of Israel knows no bounds. For we have forsaken our commitment to balanced judgement, in his estimation.

Libya's Foreign Minister Musa Kusa was right in concluding how unfortunate it was that al-Qaeda benefited materially from Fowler's release; it was indeed "unfortunate".