Anand: ‘not appropriate’ to compare with past ministers on human rights, global law

OTTAWA — Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand says her government’s approach to human rights and international law shouldn’t be compared to that of her predecessors because of increased turbulence and economic threats.

“This moment in which we are living is markedly different than every other geopolitical environment in which previous foreign ministers have found themselves,” Anand told The Canadian Press in an interview.

“To take the frame that they are using — that they used, in their role — and apply it to today is not appropriate.”

Her comments come after months where advocates have argued the Carney government has held back on direct criticism of U.S. Donald Trump, who brushed aside international law in an interview earlier this month.

One of Anand’s Liberal predecessors, Lloyd Axworthy, has been among the most vocal critics, arguing Canada is harming its own interests by not standing up for the principles it has earned a reputation for defending.

The pushback has included derision on social media for an early January statement after the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, in which Anand called on “all parties to exercise restraint and uphold international law.”

Last November, several media outlets reported that Anand said whether U.S. strikes on Venezuelan boats — for allegedly smuggling drugs — complied with international law was “within the purview of U.S. authorities to make that determination.”

Last September, Anand did not condemn Washington’s decision to sanction a Canadian judge on the International Criminal Court, Kimberly Prost, for her work on a case involving American troops in Afghanistan.

Instead, Anand said she spoke with Prost and said she had “utmost confidence in Judge Prost’s capacity … to be objective and impartial.”

Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations at that time, Bob Rae, deleted a tweet that had called the move a “disgraceful” attack “intended to weaken and intimidate the international legal system.”

France has been critical of all three moves by Washington, saying the U.S. is undermining international law by capturing Maduro, striking Venezuelan boats and sanctioning ICC judges.

Mark Kersten, a University of the Fraser Valley professor who specializes in international law, argued earlier this month that Canada’s silence sets “precedents for further breaches” by Washington and others.

“If Ottawa’s silence continues, who will stand up for us if Washington puts our own country in its crosshairs,” he posed on the platform X.

Ottawa has taken further criticism for walking back the feminist foreign policy that undergirded the Trudeau government. Anand said last November that Ottawa will still advance gender equality, but “in a way that recognizes the new geopolitical and fiscal context — both of which demand a different frame.”

In an interview Monday, she had similar comments. While Anand did not directly reference Canada’s looming trade talks with the U.S., she stressed the need to balance economic imperatives with values.

“We are very much focused on principled pragmatism to address these principles of international law and international humanitarian law while pragmatically addressing the domestic economic concerns,” she said.

“We’re not sacrificing one because of the other — we are pursuing both.”

In her maiden speech to the UN General Assembly as foreign minister, Anand declared that values such as human rights were among three pillars underpinning Carney’s foreign policy, alongside defence and economic resilience.

That means advancing gender equality, environmental protection and Indigenous rights, particularly in the Arctic, she said last September.

Anand confirmed Ottawa is still pursuing a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council for 2028 to 2030, in a vote likely to take place this fall.

When asked to name Carney’s major contribution to human rights since taking office, she cited support for Ukrainian and Greenlandic self-determination.

“From a human rights perspective, from an international law perspective, we’ll continue to stand up for the notion, as an example, of territorial integrity, of state sovereignty — which themselves are people-focused,” she said.

“Those individuals in those countries need to determine their own future. That idea, self-determination, Is at the core of international law.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 30, 2026.

Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press