• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wouldn't MPs become nullified once off the property line of the Embassy anyway?

I understand there is a push to have more Embassies manned with MPs and increase the size of Embassy Security Teams; however leaving the safety of the Embassy should be a "...at your own risk..." deal as it is now.
 
"De Kerckhove says Stephen Harper's Conservative government "has very little time for its diplomats."

Typical.

Just like the special interests and politicians that dance on people's graves after a mass shooting.

It's not about the loss of a loved one or valued employee.

It's all about how you can embarrass the other side and poke a sharp stick in their eye.

I'm guessing the PM didn't give him his friggin' gold watch , when he retired, and he's still pissed.

Wanker.
 
What would a Professor in the Department of French at the University of Toronto, know about if the PM cares about diplomats or not??/



Larry
 
What's the annual fatality rate per 100,000 for DFAIT employees?  (This is not a trivial question  - either additional protection is necessary and cost-effective by cold actuarial analysis, or it is not.)
 
Larry Strong said:
What would a Professor in the Department of French at the University of Toronto, know about if the PM cares about diplomats or not??
You may have your de Kerckhove's mixed up.

The one quoted, Ferry (a former foreign service officer and senior official in Foreign Affairs), would probably be in a pretty good position to talk about the vibe within the department before he left in 2011. 

The U of T one, Derrick, maybe not so much.

That said ....
recceguy said:
.... It's all about how you can embarrass the other side and poke a sharp stick in their eye ....
.... it does have a bit of that feel, don't it?
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Walter Russell Mead's blof ViaMeadia, is an interesting proposal:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/09/29/why-australia-and-canada-should-cooperate-more-on-asia/
newspaper-drawing.png

Why Australia and Canada Should Cooperate More On Asia

Walter Russell Mead

September 29, 2013

Here’s an idea whose time might be coming: think-tankers in Canada and Australia are looking at ways the two countries may cooperate as Canada increasingly turns its focus towards Asia and the Pacific. A joint report from Canada’s CIGI and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute lays out the rationale:

    For a long time, both countries’ armed forces have tended to follow trends initiated from Britain or the United States. But increasingly, with Britain and the United States taking a more constrained role in security affairs,
    Canadian and Australian officials are finding themselves the more vocal of the traditional English-speaking security partners. Finding themselves agreeing on a number of issues has caught some by surprise. Yet they have long
    had much in common, and the shared understanding and altered circumstances are pointing to a renewed interest in collaboration and cross-pollination to enhance regional security and stability.

This is a natural alliance, one that WRM has pointed to years ago. Australia and Canada are two mineral-rich exporters and developed economies with closely aligned interests and values in the Asian theater. Working together can give both countries more clout whether dealing with the US, China or any of the other powers in the region.

Canada historically has focused its diplomacy more on Europe and through the medium of international institutions that reflected European assumptions, ideas and power relationships. But a rising Asia is pulling Canada’s attention to the Pacific, where greater activism and engagement will be very welcome to the Australians among others.

Should the UK ever leave the EU, expect it to look for ways to engage more closely with the Queen’s overseas dominions. But in the meantime, closer Australia-Canada cooperation looks like a win-win solution for all involved.


His points, including about the UK leaving the EU, are well taken.
 
On TV last night, CBC's Terry Milewski also reported that Harper had difficulty "attracting attention" during his visit to Kuala Lumpur, in part because his visit coincided with that of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Malaysia. Canadian trade with Malaysia is only about $3 billion a year compared to China's $100 billion a year trade links with Malaysia.

Yahoo News

Harper meets with business leaders in Malaysia
CBC

(...)

On Saturday, he sat down with executives from the oil and gas sector, such as Talisman and Petronas Progress Energy. Vice-presidents from Blackberry and Bombardier were also in the meeting.

Marc Parent, chief executive officer of Montreal-based CAE Inc., is in Kuala Lumpur with Harper. Parent heads a company that trains all of the pilots of the discount carrier Air Asia, the fastest-growing airline in the region.

"Aerospace as a whole throughout the world will grow about four or five per cent in the next 20 years, but that will probably double in this region of the world just because of the growth of the middle class and the fact that airlines are making it affordable to travel," Parent said.

The Harper government has been criticized for coming to Asia late to drum up business, but Parent said all that matters is that the prime minister is here now.

Harper meets with Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak on Sunday, after Razak wraps up much anticipated talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The two Asian countries are major trading partners, and on Friday, they agreed to work on deals that could nearly triple the flow of trade between by 2017.

Taiwan's envoy to the annual leaders' meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum is expected to hold face-to-face talks with the Chinese president in Bali on Sunday, sources said Friday.

Economic growth in Southeast Asia is slowing, but it's still expected to surpass many other areas of the world.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Ten thousand people are feared dead in TACLOBAN.I suspect the toll will be much higher throughout the affected area.

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/typhoon-death-toll-in-1-city-could-reach-10-000-1.252064

mad dog 2020 said:
Now if we had a couple of ships like the Karel Doorman. We could send one to the  Philippines, immediately!
We did it for Katrina. There are plenty of Canadians especially from Winnipeg (send it and the PR in the namesake city would pay dividends), that have immediate family there.
We did it for Haiti, because the GG was from there and it was already our second largest target for annual aid money.
I think sending help and supplies would be a sight more useful than dumping cash into relief funds or agencies. We dumped millions upon millions into Haiti and the people got nylon tents from Canadian Tire.
I suggest you say our AOR is sailing in one week and the tractor trailers packed and loaded from Winnipeg would be there in 2 days, hell get the rivalry of the Ice Road Truckers going?
Maybe with the regular schedule of disasters we need to re-think the availability of the new Berlin class AOR's and toss in that Dutch Karel Doorman as a immediate spare.


How Canada helps in these disasters is always likely to be somewhat controversial.

Philippines is a second world country - it has an advancing economy, one of the better performers in Asia, right now, but it is hampered by a government that has 400 years of horrible examples (Spain and the USA) that encourage epidemic levels of corruption and all manner of political chicanery. In this particular case:

    1. The Philippines, especially the Philippines military, can manage disaster relief; they will, as pbi said elsewhere ask for what they need;

    2. Direct, country-to-country aid money may not be as well spent as we would wish ~ corruption will eat too much of it;

    3. Aid agencies work freely in Philippines so they are, in this case, the best way to route aid.

I will be happier when the government adds dollar for dollar matching aid to that raised by the Philippines-Canadian communities.

I believe (I'm out of my lanes) that a ship like the Karel Doorman would be a good addition to the Canadian fleet  but not as an aid platform.

JSS%20A833%20Karel%20Doorman.png


Of course, warships are the most versatile military units we have: they project power wherever they go and can do humanitarian missions at the same time. But humanitarian relief is not a reason to buy a ship or form a military unit.*

_____
* We are, in my opinion, doing the DART right, it "is not a standing unit but a core group of existing military capabilities that are pre-identified and retained at a high level of readiness." Even then I suspect we devote too much time and money to a tertiary military requirement.
 
Is it really that unusual that a GG meets a new foreign head of state (or slightly lower foreign officials who are seen as on the rise to become head of state) BEFORE the PM?

National Post


It’s been two years, and Harper still hasn’t had a bilateral meeting with China’s president. Is there a deeper issue?
Jason Fekete, Postmedia News |

OTTAWA — Nearly two years after Xi Jinping, now China’s president, initially ducked an invitation from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to visit Canada, the two leaders still have not held an official bilateral meeting — sparking questions by some experts about the state of Sino-Canadian relations.

Harper is one of only two G8 leaders who have not held a meeting with Xi since the Chinese president officially took office early this year, or who have not been invited for an official state visit. Canada and China have held other high-level talks, however.

Other leaders, such as Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (who has only been in office two months) have already held a bilateral meeting with Xi or been invited to China.

Canada-China observers believe a handful of lingering issues is straining the relationship between the two leaders and countries, including: Harper’s changes to foreign investment rules for state-owned enterprises; Canada’s delay in enacting the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement (FIPA); ongoing human rights concerns in the Asian country; and a continued lack of infrastructure to export Canadian resources to China.

“The relationship is suffering from these issues,” said one expert, Charles Burton, a former diplomat based in China and an associate professor at Brock University specializing in Canada-China relations.

Harper and Xi have run into each other as part of a larger group of world leaders at multiple international forums, such as the APEC and G20 summits, but have not held a formal, one-on-one meeting.

Calls have been mounting from business groups for Harper to make another trip to China – he was last there in early 2012 – or for the Chinese leadership to return to Canada for an official state visit.

Gov. Gen. David Johnston, Foreign Minister John Baird and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver (along with a number of Canadian business leaders) were in China in October on an official state visit, where the Governor General met Xi and other senior government officials.

Federal government briefing notes titled “SECRET” and obtained by Postmedia News using access-to-information legislation show that Xi – who was Chinese vice-president and effectively leader-in-waiting at the time – sidestepped a personal invitation from Harper to visit Canada in February 2012 while in North America for a trip to the U.S.

“On December 16, 2011, the Prime Minister sent a letter of invitation to Vice President Xi Jinping to visit Canada on the margins of his U.S. trip in February (2012),” says a briefing note prepared for International Trade Minister Ed Fast.

“Xi Jinping replied that he would be happy to visit Canada ‘at a mutually convenient time,’ but did not specify anything further,” the briefing note adds.

“Prime Minister Harper sent a letter to Xi Jinping in December 2012, congratulating him on his appointment as General Secretary of the Communist Party of China and renewed his invitation to visit Canada at his earliest opportunity.”

Shortly after Harper’s invitation, the prime minister conducted a state visit to China in February 2012, just days before Xi travelled to the United States. While in China, Harper met with the Chinese president and premier at the time, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, as well as current Premier Li Keqiang, but did not get a chance to sit down with Xi.


A separate briefing note from earlier this year to the deputy minister of Foreign Affairs – in preparation for a deputy ministers’ breakfast on China – showed Canadian officials noted a change in leadership style compared to former Chinese president Hu, but were still waiting for Xi to show his cards.

“Xi’s first few months: Change in style and tone from Hu. Gave folksy and pragmatic speech upon selection … Spoke about need for Party to address China’s economic and social ills. Focused on visible anti-corruption measures,” says the briefing note.

“But much about Xi’s intentions, agenda remain to be revealed,” it adds. “No reason to expect accommodating stance (from Chinese leadership) on foreign policy issues …”

Nevertheless, the briefing note says the federal government must view its contact network at all levels of the Chinese government “as a national asset with long-term value.” It also indicated that Canadian ministers don’t even need much of a business case to visit China, and that face-to-face time is reason enough.

“Visits and activities that do not stand on their own merits may be justifiable or even critical when their network-building value is considered,” it says.

The Governor General’s visit last month, albeit at the request of the prime minister, was a bit of an eye-opener for some political observers who found it a bit strange the Governor General would hold an official bilateral meeting and state visit with Xi before Harper.

“That wouldn’t have happened in the past,” added Burton, who was in China during the Governor General’s tour and following details of the visit.

Johnston, along with government ministers Baird and Oliver, were part of a Canadian delegation that also included the heads of a number of major business groups such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Canadian Council of Chief Executives.

The Governor General (who exercises the duties of Canada’s head of state, the Queen), met with Xi in his role as China’s head of state and with Chinese Premier Li, the head of government.


Burton said a few irritants in the bilateral relationship could be contributing to the holdup in Harper meeting Xi.

He specifically noted Canada’s delay in officially enacting the controversial FIPA with China, and the Harper government’s changes to foreign investment rules a year ago that warned state-owned enterprise takeovers of oilsands companies will only be permitted on “an exceptional basis only.”

“You’ve done something which the Chinese government would not see as being very positive,” Burton said.

“So there may be some reluctance on the part of the Chinese authorities to receive our prime minister under those conditions because, from their point of view, things are not going the way they had hoped.”

— With files from Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a report on the latest shift in Canada's foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-new-foreign-affairs-vision-shifts-focus-to-economic-diplomacy/article15624653/#dashboard/follows/
gam-masthead.png

Tories’ new foreign-affairs vision shifts focus to ‘economic diplomacy’

JOHN IBBITSON
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Nov. 27 2013

Stephen Harper’s Conservative government will make “economic diplomacy” in service of private industry the centrepiece of this country’s foreign policy, marking a historic shift in Canada’s approach to the world.

In a major report to be released Wednesday, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is instructed to “entrench the concept of ‘economic diplomacy’ as the driving force behind the Government of Canada’s activities through its international diplomatic network.

“… All diplomatic assets of the Government of Canada will be marshalled on behalf of the private sector” to fulfill an ambitious agenda of opening new markets to Canadian goods and services, declares the Global Markets Action Plan, the equivalent of a foreign-policy white paper. A copy of the report has been obtained by The Globe and Mail.

The new orientation is the result of a direct order that Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave Ed Fast when he was appointed Minister of International Trade after the 2011 election, according to a government official who spoke on background. The Prime Minister wants trade to become the dominant focus of Canada’s foreign policy, and Mr. Fast was to come up with the blueprint for making that happen. The Global Markets Action Plan is that blueprint.

The plan was stiffly resisted by many senior officials within the department itself, according to a government official speaking on background. Calling the new directive “a culture shift” for Foreign Affairs, the official said the action plan sends a message to Canada’s diplomats: “Take off your tweed jacket, buy a business suit and land us a deal.”

The Conservative government has previously signalled its interest in tying foreign policy and trade. Earlier this year, the government eliminated the Canadian International Development Agency and merged its functions into a new Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. It has also said it would integrate commercial and foreign-policy considerations with international development efforts that have traditionally focused more exclusively on poverty reduction.

The market-first approach to foreign policy will offer fresh ammunition for critics – not least among them former prime minister Joe Clark – who allege the Harper government has adopted a ham-fisted approach to foreign affairs that neglects engagement in collective security and foreign aid through multilateral forums such as the United Nations in favour of simplistic nostrums and a single-minded obsession with trade.

But the plan already has the support of figures such as former Liberal foreign minister John Manley, head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives; Catherine Swift, who chairs the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Perrin Beatty, head of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Jayson Myers, president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. All of them served on an advisory panel that helped draw up the action plan.

The plan targets three sets of countries. The first includes emerging markets where Canada could make broad gains, because of rapid growth in the market and a natural fit between what the country needs and what Canada sells. Such countries include China, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, Russia and Turkey, among others.

The second set consists of emerging markets with specific opportunities for Canadian businesses, such as Mongolia, Uruguay, Ghana and Kazakhstan, while the third consists of developed economies.

The document points out that Canada will be the only G8 nation with preferential access to both the European Union and the United States, once the proposed free-trade agreement with the EU is ratified.

The new strategy will “ensure that all of the Government of Canada’s diplomatic assets are harnessed to support the pursuit of commercial success by Canadian companies and investors,” says Mr. Fast, in the text of a speech to be delivered to the Economic Club of Canada in Ottawa Wednesday morning.

The new strategy places a heavy emphasis on improving emerging-market access to small and medium-sized companies, known as SMEs. The goal is to increase the number of Canadian SMEs that sell into emerging markets from 11,000 to 21,000 by 2018.

To reach that goal, the government will pursue new trade agreements, foreign-investment protection agreements, taxation agreements, air transportation agreements and science and technology agreements. A core mandate of Canadian diplomats and other officials will be to “open doors, generate leads and resolve problems” for SMEs and other Canadian businesses, according to the action plan.

As well as initialling the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union last month, the government is heavily involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, which would include Canada and 11 other nations, as well as in bilateral talks with Japan, India, Thailand and South Korea, among others, although final agreements have proved difficult to reach.


"Peace and prosperity", I have often argued, is a good shorthand phrase to describe Canada's (and most other nations') vital interests. I have explained that the two tend to go hand-in-hand and are, in sum, greater than just the absence of war and a "chicken in every pot." This, a commercial agenda - it's not a strategy, is consistent with our national interests and interests ought to be the base upon which all policies rest.

I would add, however, that a "commercial agenda" cannot succeed unless Canada presents a balanced face towards the world ~ we must have some military muscle to make this work. "Economic diplomacy" is one aspect of a soft power strategy but, as Joseph Nye, the father of soft power pointed out, it, soft power, is worthless unless it is backed up by visible, effective had power ... hard power we, as a nation, are ready, wiling and able to use.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
The plan was stiffly resisted by many senior officials within the department itself, according to a government official speaking on background. Calling the new directive “a culture shift” for Foreign Affairs, the official said the action plan sends a message to Canada’s diplomats: “Take off your tweed jacket, buy a business suit and land us a deal.”

Interesting that he uses the past-tense, as though it's still not 'stiffly resisted' by O.D. Skelton's kids.
 
More, reflecting I think the Paul Heinbecker school of "Harper is destroying Canada" analysis, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/ottawas-dollar-diplomacy-its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-knew-it/article15621712/#dashboard/follows/
gam-masthead.png

Ottawa’s dollar diplomacy: It’s the end of the world as we knew it

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Campbell Clark
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Nov. 27 2013

What will it look like when commercial interests lead Canada’s way in the world?

That is what the Harper Conservatives are planning in their new Global Markets Action Plan: a Canadian foreign policy where economic interests rule.

Yes, this government has already made that a work in progress. But this document, drafted under the supervision of Trade Minister Ed Fast and being unveiled this morning, marks the clear ascension of economics to the top of the foreign-policy hierarchy.

That’s a long way from where the Conservatives began. Their 2006 election platform only timidly mentioned trade agreements, and defence and human rights were the international notions at play – it castigated the Liberals for appeasing dictators for “narrow business interests.” But post-financial crisis, Stephen Harper’s view of the world has changed.

This plan is intended to turn Canada’s foreign service upside-down, downgrading the Pearsonian diplomats, with their concerns for multilateralism, peacekeeping, conflict resolution and engaging all corners of the world. There’ll be a new boss, driven by the hard-nosed interests of business.

But it’s supposed to go further than ripples in the ranks of diplomats. What would it change?

If you are imagining ambassadors with pockets full of miniature bottles of maple syrup to hand out to potential customers – well, there’s some of that. Diplomats will, the plan says, “open doors, generate leads and resolve problems.” They’ve always done some of that, especially trade commissioner, but the plan is to make the sales pitch an overarching priority for all. Always Be Closing.

Canada will pick favourites – or rather, identify the nations where its commercial interests lie. That’s already begun, as part of an internal foreign-policy review under Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, which identified the priority countries for Canadian diplomacy, but this would categorize them, and is some sense, rank them.

In a first group, there’s the big future priorities – the big emerging markets: BRICs like China and India, the biggest nations of southeast Asia, as well as Mexico, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and few others. Then there’s countries where there’s specific Canadian interest, like the uranium trade with Kazakhstan or mining in a number African nations. The third group are big existing trading partners like the U.S, or Europe.

That could be just a different way of colouring the map, but this plan calls for more. Foreign aid, air routes, tourism promotion, even the recruitment of foreign students will be enlisted to serve those priorities, according to the plan. Presumably, immigration policy and the processing of visas will have to be part of it, too. And of course, reorganizing the foreign service to priority countries.

In foreign aid, the Harper government’s move to link aid projects to the mining sector and the investments of Canadian companies would be entrenched and expanded. That’s in particular for the those second-group countries where Canada has specific trade interests, like Mongolia or Mali. Folding the Canadian International Development Agency into the Foreign Affairs department was a part of the plan.

But it’s not just aid. This is a plan to make things like air routes between Toronto and Istanbul part of the strategy. It calls for improving “connectivity” to those priority markets, notably by signing air-transportation agreements to make travel connections and cargo shipping easier.

The plan identifies tourism and education as factors that can create links to those priority markets; that means promoting Canadian tourism in, for example, Turkey or Mexico, or recruiting foreign students from those countries, will be seen as a way to expand trade.

If those concerns for connectivity are real, it will also require a revamp of Canada’s immigration policies – notably visitors’ visas. The visa system essentially provides an open door to Canada’s well-established trading partners, and sets obstacles for people from the emerging markets that are supposed to be the new priorities. Just look at how imposing a visitors’ visa requirement on Mexico hurt not just tourism but relations with the country, and Canada’s reputation.

Some of those adjustments are definitely needed, if Canada is to adjust to a changing world. Business is business. The ambition to have the foreign service serve as a help meet to small businesses trying to sell abroad is probably an exaggerated hope, though. Mr. Harper’s government has repeatedly found other countries want to talk about more than trade. And Canadians, too: that’s why his first election platform promised foreign policy would be about more than business.

Campbell Clark is a columnist in The Globe’s Ottawa bureau.


I expect that Paul Heinbecker is bashing his keyboard right now, turning out elegant, well crafted phrases to tell us why Prime Minister Harper is wrong and Pierre Trudeau was right, but I suspect that Campbell Clark has stolen his thunder.

Foreign policy IS about more than just trade and commerce. Of course we need to stand for something other than just making a quick buck. But: we have to be able to afford our principles and we are a trading nation and some of our core principles - like private property - have a strong economic dimension.

So, stand by for the weeping and wailing ... but pay it no mind.
 
It is amusing when "thinkers" who are offended that Harper's policies might be diminishing Canada's diplomatic power seem indifferent to the importance of economic power.
 
Aren't we just catching up with the rest  of the world with this approach?
 
I think it's more a case of being 'up front' with our focus, rather than catching up.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole American/British/French political strategy in the Middle East based on economic policies e.g. access to cheap oil?
 
Yes, but with a twist: if "The West" were collectively more energy self-sufficient, there would still be advantages to preventing any other bloc from consolidating access to ME oil.  (The same principle applies in general to any strategically important commodity.)
 
Totally true.

The USN provides control of the sea lanes and access to ME oil not becasue they need it (in the past, the US primarily imported oil from Mexico, Canada and Venezuela), but to ensure their trade partners had access to inexpensive energy. Europe, Japan, the Four Tigers, India and China all benefit form the USN doing the heavy lifting, and the US gets the benefit of having multiple large trading blocks with large economies as their market, and no peer or near peer competition on the seas.

As US naval presence shrinks, we should be thinking more of how to fill the gaps, and who our allies might be in holding the Pacific lines of communicatin and oceanic trade.
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act fro the Globe and Mail, is a stinging, and, to recycle the author's own words, "a bitter, small-minded," and, I suggest, narrow minded and ill considered critique of Canada's foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-bitter-small-minded-foreign-policy/article16147665/#dashboard/follows/and
gam-masthead.png

Canada’s bitter, small-minded foreign policy

PETER JONES
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Jan. 02 2014

A foreign policy comprises many things. Interests, however defined, often dominate. But values must also be present if that policy is to be more than a series of transactions. Canada has always been a curious country when it comes to foreign policy. Blessed with abundant resources and not specifically threatened, we have always had more scope than most to indulge in ideas. But core interests have traditionally underpinned our foreign policy.

Good relations with the United States are a core foreign policy interest. Yet, even while most Canadians have, sometimes grudgingly, accepted the benefits of a deeper economic relationship with the United States, we have sought through multilateralism and the promotion of new ideas to portray ourselves as somehow different (and superior). This has led to some tiresome mantras and not a little childish grandstanding over the years. But, as someone who travels frequently to many parts of the world, and particularly to many troubled parts of the world, it has also created a sense of Canada in the world that is quite powerful and unique.

What is not generally appreciated is that this approach is not merely self-indulgent; it serves a core interest. Working to strengthen multilateral organizations, supporting the development of norms of conduct in international affairs and contributing to peace and good governance around the world are not simply “nice” things to do – a rules-based international order, expressed through an interlocking web of institutions and commitments, benefits Canada.

A predictable world order where things like trade and security play out according to rules (admittedly something observed more in the breach in many parts of the world) is a world in which smaller countries have a better chance of advancing their interests. This is quiet, patient, painstaking work that rarely generates headlines. Progress is incremental and measured in years. It is less emotionally satisfying to some than yelling at the world from the rooftops. But it makes a contribution, over time, to creating a world that serves Canada’s interests.

The Conservatives have stood this on its head. In making foreign policy a reflection of their domestic approach to governance – finding wedge issues with which to detach segments of the population and play to their fears and angers – the Conservatives have given us a bitter, small-minded foreign policy. There are a few notable exceptions, such as the promotion of gay rights internationally, but most of the Conservative approach is centred on angry assertions of simplistic moral absolutes that play well to certain domestic constituencies, but contribute nothing to the world or to unifying Canadians behind a positive vision of their place in it.

With issues such as Israel, Iran, religious freedom and more, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is not interested in what Canada can actually do to help in any modest way. It is interested in what bluster and noise it can make to impress a key domestic constituency that it hopes to attract or retain as part of its “base.”

Ironically, all of this undercuts what the Conservatives should recognize as an overriding foreign policy objective: good relations with the United States. For example, President Barack Obama’s administration currently has a tough job trying to both find a nuclear deal with Iran and promote compromise between Israelis and Palestinians. Both issues are key to avoiding wars in the Middle East in the next decade. The administration needs friends and allies who will quietly roll up their sleeves and help look for answers. What it gets from Canada is bluster and intransigence, as the Conservatives hew to the dictates of the Israeli right in hopes of securing votes in Canada.

Of course, Mr. Obama does not represent the totality of the U.S. political scene. In taking the views they do, the Conservatives are mirroring elements of the U.S. right, especially its Tea Party segment. But is this in Canada’s interests? Has anyone checked out the Tea Party’s views on things like protectionism and free trade recently? It would be a disaster for Canada if this faction ever came to power.

This drives home the central reality of Mr. Harper’s foreign policy: It is about his party’s short-term, narrowly defined domestic political interests. It is about negative campaigning and the politics of fear and division. The only good thing one can say (and it is a pretty damning indictment) is that the Conservatives have managed to make Canada so irrelevant to the key issues on the world stage that we can do little damage by taking these positions – except to ourselves.

Peter Jones is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. He is also an Annenberg distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.


Professor Jones needs to go back to school, this time to history class. Interests, which are always rooted in domestic situations, always set foreign policy. Foreign policy is ALL ABOU US ~ about what we do about, with, for, and, sometimes, to other countries in order to secure OUR advantages, at home and abroad.

I have not agreed with all of this government's policies nor, especially, with how they pursue all of them, but, broadly and generally, this is better foreign policy that anything offered in the Trudeau/Chrétien eras. It is not the best foreign policy Canada has ever had ~ that was M. St Laurent's, enunciated in 1947 ~ but it's a damned site better than most, including, I suggest, the policies of America and Britain.
 
>simplistic moral absolutes

For example, the quaint notion that terrorist sponsor states should be pressed to cease sponsoring terrorists, in order to promote that "simplistic moral absolute" that a person has a right to life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top