Sheer budget pressure, not a safer world, is driving the new defence policy U.S. President Barack Obama rolled out this past week. The Pentagon’s bloated $700 billion budget could face a $100 billion hit, depending on Congress’s zeal for cuts. So the White House is suddenly playing up the virtues of a smaller military and of thinking twice before getting involved in wars.To Canadians this may look like housekeeping as heavy U.S. action in Iraq and Afghanistan winds down. To a degree it is. Even a truncated U.S. military will vastly outgun any adversary. But the new posture promises to put Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government on the spot, not so much because of its hard military implications as its softer diplomatic ones.
Looking forward, the U.S. hopes to rally more “allies and partners” to help police the world, Obama said. That involves thwarting terror, containing aggressors without all-out war, and keeping the peace.
While the idea of burden-sharing is hardly new, Obama seems to be setting the table to rely more heavily on diplomacy at the United Nations and elsewhere to contain threats such as Iran and North Korea. At the same time he plans to affirm U.S. interests across Asia in part by working with Australia, an old ally, and with India, a new one. Finally, he sees the volatile Middle East as a priority and is wooing Gulf Arab allies there.
As it happens, these are three key areas in which the Harper government’s diplomacy has been deficient, blundering or distorted. If Ottawa aspires to be more than a passive onlooker as the U.S. redefines its relations with much of the world, Harper will have to step up his game and shore up Canada’s credibility.
The United Nations. Harper’s indifference to the UN is notorious. Last year it cost us a seat on the Security Council. And Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird doesn’t seem to care. He used his speech to the General Assembly last fall to chide the UN for its “slow decline.” In the past, Tory prime ministers such as Brian Mulroney played far bigger roles rallying the world against apartheid and championing foreign aid. Rather than neglect the UN, Harper should upgrade our input.
The Asia Pacific region. Here, too, Harper has been painfully slow to engage. After ignoring China and India for years after his 2006 election, he finally got around to visiting both emerging giants. But diplomatic damage was done and we’re now playing catch-up. While Harper is open to joining the American-led Trans-Pacific Partnership trade bloc talks (with Mexico Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Chile and Peru), it took some U.S. prodding. Ottawa needs to step up the tempo.
The Middle East. Canada rightly helped Libyans shake off Moammar Gadhafi’s regime. But Harper’s reflexive support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government (whose settler policy has alienated not only the U.S. but also Egypt and Turkey) has hurt our credibility and blunted our influence with Arab partners that Obama is courting. Ottawa should revert to our traditionally more nuanced stance. If there is a Mideast peace, we should be positioned to serve as a credible guarantor.
Granted, Canada has been a staunch U.S. partner in Afghanistan and Libya on Harper’s watch. But Washington’s new doctrine, which may outlive the Obama administration, places a significant premium on allies who can be helpful in a wide variety of diplomatic and military contexts. By neglecting the UN, shirking any honest broker role in the Mideast and waking late to Asia’s importance, Ottawa under Harper has less traction in areas that are increasingly important to our main ally. It’s not where we should aspire to be.
Original Article
Source: Star
No comments:
Post a Comment