I swore I would not write about Canadian recognition of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence until one of my colleagues started complaining first. I have received the necessary email. (UPDATE: It came from O'Malley; her take on this Kosovo business is here.) Off we go then.

Yes, the Harper government is actually taking longer to (at least publicly) make up its mind on the Kosovo file than  Not A Leader.   Canada is one of the few Canada-like countries that has not yet recognized Kosovo. The Parti Québécois and Le Devoir are complaining. (There was actually an op-ed in Le Devoir this morning complaining that Stéphane Dion's infrastructure plan was descended from the Plan B against secession. This, while a sitting Canadian government drags its feet on recognizing a secession attempt. Way to keep your eye on the ball, Alain-G.!)

All right, let's look at the substance of this first. Dion's right: Canada can feel comfortable recognizing Kosovo because it is profoundly not like Quebec. Kosovo was the site of mass ethnic slaughter less than a decade ago. It was the scene of a very muscular U.S.-led NATO military intervention to force the offenders out. Its population has recently suffered precisely the sort of deprivation from normal participation in democratic government  that authorities around the world, including Canada's Supreme Court, cite as the kind of circumstance that can add legitimacy to unilateral secession. Bernard Landry used to call Canadian federalism "predatory and domineering" because Jean Chrétien used to interrupt him at news coferences. It is embarrassing to Quebecers that anyone would compare Quebec to Kosovo.

And yet Harper delays. I am sure this is intentional. I am almost as sure I like the gesture. And I can think of a gesture I would like more.

By letting most of the world recognize Kosovo ahead of Canada, the Prime Minister is sending a simple message: unilateral secession should be hard. It should be regarded warily by other countries. It shouldn't be cavalierly encouraged. Spain is even more reluctant, for obvious reasons.

What gesture could Harper make that would be even more eloquent? He could explain himself. That he refuses to do so suggests a culpable willingness to be vague on the most fundamental questions of international law, for the sake of a few Quebec votes -- not the votes of Quebecers who would actually agree with Harper, if they knew his mind, but of those who might be confused enough to vote for him because he has not spelled things out.