Under Conservative majority rule, Canada's foreign policy has turned away from multilateral engagement.When the Conservatives formed a minority government in 2006, they were neither experienced nor interested in foreign policy. But international issues – the war in Afghanistan, international emergencies, visits by heads of state, etc. – have a way of intruding on political agendas, and all require a response.
Since the 2011 election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been more forthcoming about his vision of Canada’s role in the world. In a July 2011 interview with Maclean’s magazine, he set out his changed views on foreign policy:
I’ll just say this, since coming to office – in fact since becoming prime minister – the thing that’s probably struck me the most in terms of my previous expectations … is not just how important foreign affairs/foreign relations is, but in fact that it’s become almost everything.
I’m not dismissing peacekeeping, and I’m not dismissing foreign aid – they’re all important things that we need to do, and in some cases do better – but the real defining moments for the country and for the world are those big conflicts where everything’s at stake and where you take a side and show you can contribute to the right side.Harper and Foreign Minister John Baird’s new foreign-policy mantra seems to be, “We don’t just go along to get along” – recalling, perhaps, the TV cowboys of yesteryear. This principled approach is meant to portray a Canada that represents its own interests above all else, makes its own decisions without fear or favour, and is unafraid to use the military to make its point. This approach has attracted favourable attention from certain quarters, but, on further analysis, its strengths or advantages are hard to pin down.
Consider the following: While our stance on Libya was in line with key allies, and was one that most Canadians backed, there was no supporting policy to deal with failed states, or to invest in the mitigation of the desperate conditions that can give rise to terrorism. Similarly, while Canada’s withdrawal from Afghanistan was popular with voters, few noticed that, despite our promises to maintain an engagement in building a future for Afghans, we dropped our development spending there dramatically, as well. In addition, cuts to Canadian aid to Africa may have long-term consequences for peace on that continent.
Whether the Harper government has arrived at these piecemeal stances based on principle or not, it is problematic that no coherent approach is discernible. Addressing global peace and security requires a complex, long-term, multidimensional engagement with other partners, based on a clearly articulated view of global issues, yet Canada’s peace and security objectives under the Conservative majority government remain unclear.
It’s fine for John Baird to say that his job is to stand up for Canada, but the way to do that is to be constructive. Shouting from the sidelines or poking fingers in the eyes of friends – new or old – is not a useful tactic, and will not help create a safer world. Few in Asia or Africa care about Canadian military prowess – so what if we bombed some airfields in Libya? Canada was once respected as a trustworthy diplomatic partner, committed to peacekeeping and important multilateral initiatives such as the landmines treaty. Are we still committed to a principled foreign policy that advances the cause of making the world a safer place for all?
Multilateralism, an important vehicle for a middle power like Canada, seems to be out of favour with the current government. We seem to be saying that we will engage multilaterally only if it is to our immediate, direct advantage. Unlike the U.S., China, or the EU, Canada cannot use economic heft or military might to achieve desired outcomes. We must work with other middle-ranking countries to help shape decisions and build broad consensus on issues that matter to us, and to other countries. Making friends, talking peace, and reinforcing relationships through multilateral institutions is not “currying favour with dictators” – it is a way that Canada can punch above its weight class to provide security, stability, and continuing prosperity for Canadians and non-Canadians alike.
Global governance matters to Canada. Even if globalization has been getting rough treatment of late, few would dispute the fact that Canada’s future prospects depend on an international system with well-functioning institutions that support economic co-operation and collaboration in energy, the environment, agriculture, and Arctic protection.
Globally, we are living through a period of major geopolitical and economic transition. Canadian foreign policy needs more than bluster. Principles are important, but they are not enough on their own, especially when the approach leads, as with this government, to reactive, situational, short-term, and self-centred behaviour.
Original Article
Source: the mark news
Author: John Sinclair and Hunter McGill
No comments:
Post a Comment