Canada Has Lost Its Way on Foreign Policy

It was far more than a simple gaffe, although by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird’s unperturbed reaction, one would be hard pressed to tell.

On April 9, Canada’s foreign minister decided to cross the Green Line into Arab East Jerusalem to have coffee with his Israeli interlocutor Tzipi Livni. It was a breach of diplomatic protocol and a violation of longstanding Canadian policy — but Mr. Baird tranquilly characterized such “semantic argument(s)” as “irrelevant.”

Only a government so doggedly committed to one side of a dispute, living in its own Manichean creation, could have the gall to meet with officials of an occupying state in the land of an occupied people in search of “peace.” Since 1967, the consensus among Western states has been not to meet with Israeli officials on illegally occupied territory because doing so would be a de facto legitimation of Israel’s claims to East Jerusalem and the West Bank, illegal under international law.

Nabil Shaath, former foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority, called Baird’s incendiary coffee run a “slap in the face to the Palestinian people” at a time when the U.S. Secretary of State was shuttling between both camps to restart negotiations.

This latest diplomatic blunder, however, falls squarely within a pattern of repeated failures on the part of Canada to live up to its diplomatic reputation. Stephen Harper’s foreign policy doctrine — encapsulated in his mantra that Canada will no longer “go along just to get along” — has seen a diminution of the country’s soft power abroad and a derogation of established foreign policy principles.

Under Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, Canada adopted a policy towards Israel reminiscent of Republican neoconservatism, ruptured relations with Iran at a time when diplomatic engagement is sorely needed, ignored all of Asia — including China — until only a few years ago, froze aid to Haiti and, perhaps most appallingly of all, tied development assistance to mining interests.

The World’s Opinion Page

Help support Project Syndicate’s mission

subscribe now

The Conservatives have virtually no environmental policy and their near-obsessive disparagement of the United Nations and international institutions makes it obvious why Canada lost its bid for a U.N. Security Council seat in 2010, a first in Canadian history. At times, the prime minister has gone out of his way to snub the United Nations — as happened last fall when he accepted an international statesmanship award in New York just as the UN General Assembly was meeting but refused to address the community of nations, something that would befit a recently-commended statesman. The irony was ripe.

Of course, the prime minister sees the revolution in Canada’s foreign policy as a principled stand in an unstable world, a break from the ‘Boy Scout’ days of Liberal party foreign policy that the Conservatives relish in caricaturing. There is some merit to their critique of the 1990s, when most Canadian foreign policy was outsourced to UN Headquarters — what Allan Gotlieb termed the Chretien Doctrine — and the military’s budget was slashed precipitously. After 9/11, Canada was ill-prepared in terms of sheer hard power to respond, but Canadian soldiers still valiantly took on dangerous roles in Afghanistan from which our European counterparts respectfully shied away.

For Harper’s Conservatives, however, unilateralism and assertiveness have become ends in themselves, rather than means to be employed selectively to achieve strategic ends. “We know where our interests lie and who are friends are,” Harper thundered after his 2011 majority victory. “And we take strong, principled positions in our dealings with other nations, whether popular or not.”

What are these “principled positions”? Unflinching support for Israel, tacit support for Bahrain — a rabid human rights violator — unilateral withdrawal from the UN anti-drought convention, hectoring and lecturing other countries abroad as the Canadian government goes in search for lucrative trade deals, cutting development programs and the Department of Foreign Affairs’ budget. This is not leadership. It is naiveté coupled with hubris, a dangerous combination for the country’s future.

After seven years in office, it has become abundantly clear that the Conservative party dislikes diplomacy more than it dislikes the Liberals. On issues after issue, Canada now seems callous, rhetorically belligerent and hopelessly inconsistent. Roland Paris, University Research Chair of International Security and Governance at the University of Ottawa, recently compared this new Canada to a drunk, “sometimes shouting and haranguing, and sometimes whispering conspiratorially.”

“No one knows what to expect from Canada anymore,” Paris concluded. Even to dignify the Conservatives’ approach to the world by calling it a foreign policy — in the true sense of the term — would be a mistake, as the country now meanders from region to region mouthing platitudes.

Eventually, this government will be replaced and Harper’s successors will have their work cut out for them to restore the country’s global standing. In which direction should Canadian foreign policy head? Some common-sense steps Canada should take include: a return to substantive support for a two-state solution; a resumption of diplomatic engagement with Middle Eastern states coupled with nudges towards democratic reform; a restoration of the United Nations’ proper place within Canadian diplomacy; a lead on international climate change negotiations; a refrain from incessant references to Canada’s colonial heritage; a priority on civil societies across the developing world; and, in tandem with greater prioritization of the Asia-Pacific region, a ‘pivot to Africa’ strategy that will make Canada an equal partner with that vital continent moving forward.

Both progressives and conservatives tired of this government’s moralistic bombast could unite around a revitalized foreign policy. As an established democracy with a legacy of international support and respect, Canada has much to offer the world. It’s time we got back to it.

A version of this article originally appeared in iPolitics on April 21, 2013. 

http://prosyn.org/Z6xzoME;
  1. Television sets showing a news report on Xi Jinping's speech Anthony Wallace/Getty Images

    Empowering China’s New Miracle Workers

    China’s success in the next five years will depend largely on how well the government manages the tensions underlying its complex agenda. In particular, China’s leaders will need to balance a muscular Communist Party, setting standards and protecting the public interest, with an empowered market, driving the economy into the future.

  2. United States Supreme Court Hisham Ibrahim/Getty Images

    The Sovereignty that Really Matters

    The preference of some countries to isolate themselves within their borders is anachronistic and self-defeating, but it would be a serious mistake for others, fearing contagion, to respond by imposing strict isolation. Even in states that have succumbed to reductionist discourses, much of the population has not.

  3.  The price of Euro and US dollars Daniel Leal Olivas/Getty Images

    Resurrecting Creditor Adjustment

    When the Bretton Woods Agreement was hashed out in 1944, it was agreed that countries with current-account deficits should be able to limit temporarily purchases of goods from countries running surpluses. In the ensuing 73 years, the so-called "scarce-currency clause" has been largely forgotten; but it may be time to bring it back.

  4. Leaders of the Russian Revolution in Red Square Keystone France/Getty Images

    Trump’s Republican Collaborators

    Republican leaders have a choice: they can either continue to collaborate with President Donald Trump, thereby courting disaster, or they can renounce him, finally putting their country’s democracy ahead of loyalty to their party tribe. They are hardly the first politicians to face such a decision.

  5. Angela Merkel, Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron John Thys/Getty Images

    How Money Could Unblock the Brexit Talks

    With talks on the UK's withdrawal from the EU stalled, negotiators should shift to the temporary “transition” Prime Minister Theresa May officially requested last month. Above all, the negotiators should focus immediately on the British budget contributions that will be required to make an orderly transition possible.

  6. Ksenia Sobchak Mladlen Antonov/Getty Images

    Is Vladimir Putin Losing His Grip?

    In recent decades, as President Vladimir Putin has entrenched his authority, Russia has seemed to be moving backward socially and economically. But while the Kremlin knows that it must reverse this trajectory, genuine reform would be incompatible with the kleptocratic character of Putin’s regime.

  7. Right-wing parties hold conference Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images

    Rage Against the Elites

    • With the advantage of hindsight, four recent books bring to bear diverse perspectives on the West’s current populist moment. 
    • Taken together, they help us to understand what that moment is and how it arrived, while reminding us that history is contingent, not inevitable


    Global Bookmark

    Distinguished thinkers review the world’s most important new books on politics, economics, and international affairs.

  8. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin Bill Clark/Getty Images

    Don’t Bank on Bankruptcy for Banks

    As a part of their efforts to roll back the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, congressional Republicans have approved a measure that would have courts, rather than regulators, oversee megabank bankruptcies. It is now up to the Trump administration to decide if it wants to set the stage for a repeat of the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008.