Hey, what’s the big deal over Canada and Britain sharing a few embassies? We share the same Queen. We both secretly think we’re America’s best friend. Britain invaded Iraq but Canada’s current prime minister also wanted to. In this virtual age, aren’t actual embassies with your nation’s flag flying proudly above them a relic of the past?
Well, not quite. Ask the average Iranian struggling with one of the world’s most despotic regimes. Until earlier this month, when it was closed for political reasons, the Canadian Embassy in Tehran stood prominently in the centre of the city as “a source of shame” for the Iranian government — as one prominent Iranian-Canadian journalist described it — as thousands of Iranians lined up defiantly to obtain visas to come to Canada. That no longer can happen.
It is the same Canadian Embassy that secretly sheltered six U.S. diplomats in 1979 after Iranian extremists overwhelmed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 63 people hostage.
Maziar Bahari, who was imprisoned and tortured in Iran during the 2009 election protests, says the only one to benefit when Canada pulled out was the Iranian government.
As we assess the meaning of the Canada-U.K. sharing arrangement announced this past week, we shouldn’t lose sight of what our experience in Tehran has shown us: a strong, high-profile, independent Canadian presence abroad can benefit Canada and the people in other countries who believe in it.
The trajectory of this Canada/U.K. “story” this week was intriguing, and it was interpreted in different ways in Britain and Canada. It broke last Sunday in London when the Daily Mail reported that U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague “will tomorrow (in Ottawa) launch a worldwide network of British Commonwealth embassies to rival the emergence of the European Union as a foreign superpower.” On Monday, Hague and his Canadian counterpart, John Baird, worked hard to downplay that agreement, describing it only as “small” and “administrative.”
In Canada, at least, this seemed to temper the storm, although there were some worries by former Canadian diplomats that the Canadian “brand” may get lost in the process. But in the U.K., there was still an emphasis on Britain’s motivation. The Independent newspaper reported a Conservative party blog that said the move “will seek to head off the creeping influence of European Union diplomats.” The Financial Times wrote that it “has raised fresh questions about the U.K.’s commitment to furthering links with the EU.”
There is something straightforward about London’s intent. Britain is a fading world power in deep economic trouble, and its current Conservative government is completely split over how to deal with Europe. Why not hark back to colonial days if, at the other end, there are takers?
The Canadian government motivation is less transparent. The “efficiencies” the government cites are still unclear. It is also not known yet where the $168 million in budget cuts announced earlier will be found. But it is certain to involve the elimination of several embassies and the layoff of many diplomats.
Canada’s windows on the world are gradually being closed. This is happening quietly and with little notice or debate — but with an obvious sense of ideology. Having lived and worked outside of Canada for four of the past five years — in the Middle East and Washington — I could see it in the radical restructuring of Canada’s historic relations with various parts of the world, such as Latin America, the Arab world, China, East Asia and Africa. From the outside, these changes made little sense.
Even on the issue of Canada’s international “brand,” Canada has the potential to astound. Having walked into several Canadian embassies in the developing world recently — which is the first sight of “Canada” many foreigners have — I cannot describe how ludicrous it is to stare at a picture of a British Queen.
A quick consensus seems to have developed this past week in establishment circles in Canada about this embassy arrangement. “Not a big deal,” the view seems to be. I hope they’re right.
But what makes me pause is the answer to this question: If this government is open to outsourcing its Middle East policy to another country (which shall go nameless), why wouldn’t it outsource its policy for the rest of the world to Her Majesty’s Government in London?
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Tony Burman
Well, not quite. Ask the average Iranian struggling with one of the world’s most despotic regimes. Until earlier this month, when it was closed for political reasons, the Canadian Embassy in Tehran stood prominently in the centre of the city as “a source of shame” for the Iranian government — as one prominent Iranian-Canadian journalist described it — as thousands of Iranians lined up defiantly to obtain visas to come to Canada. That no longer can happen.
It is the same Canadian Embassy that secretly sheltered six U.S. diplomats in 1979 after Iranian extremists overwhelmed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 63 people hostage.
Maziar Bahari, who was imprisoned and tortured in Iran during the 2009 election protests, says the only one to benefit when Canada pulled out was the Iranian government.
As we assess the meaning of the Canada-U.K. sharing arrangement announced this past week, we shouldn’t lose sight of what our experience in Tehran has shown us: a strong, high-profile, independent Canadian presence abroad can benefit Canada and the people in other countries who believe in it.
The trajectory of this Canada/U.K. “story” this week was intriguing, and it was interpreted in different ways in Britain and Canada. It broke last Sunday in London when the Daily Mail reported that U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague “will tomorrow (in Ottawa) launch a worldwide network of British Commonwealth embassies to rival the emergence of the European Union as a foreign superpower.” On Monday, Hague and his Canadian counterpart, John Baird, worked hard to downplay that agreement, describing it only as “small” and “administrative.”
In Canada, at least, this seemed to temper the storm, although there were some worries by former Canadian diplomats that the Canadian “brand” may get lost in the process. But in the U.K., there was still an emphasis on Britain’s motivation. The Independent newspaper reported a Conservative party blog that said the move “will seek to head off the creeping influence of European Union diplomats.” The Financial Times wrote that it “has raised fresh questions about the U.K.’s commitment to furthering links with the EU.”
There is something straightforward about London’s intent. Britain is a fading world power in deep economic trouble, and its current Conservative government is completely split over how to deal with Europe. Why not hark back to colonial days if, at the other end, there are takers?
The Canadian government motivation is less transparent. The “efficiencies” the government cites are still unclear. It is also not known yet where the $168 million in budget cuts announced earlier will be found. But it is certain to involve the elimination of several embassies and the layoff of many diplomats.
Canada’s windows on the world are gradually being closed. This is happening quietly and with little notice or debate — but with an obvious sense of ideology. Having lived and worked outside of Canada for four of the past five years — in the Middle East and Washington — I could see it in the radical restructuring of Canada’s historic relations with various parts of the world, such as Latin America, the Arab world, China, East Asia and Africa. From the outside, these changes made little sense.
Even on the issue of Canada’s international “brand,” Canada has the potential to astound. Having walked into several Canadian embassies in the developing world recently — which is the first sight of “Canada” many foreigners have — I cannot describe how ludicrous it is to stare at a picture of a British Queen.
A quick consensus seems to have developed this past week in establishment circles in Canada about this embassy arrangement. “Not a big deal,” the view seems to be. I hope they’re right.
But what makes me pause is the answer to this question: If this government is open to outsourcing its Middle East policy to another country (which shall go nameless), why wouldn’t it outsource its policy for the rest of the world to Her Majesty’s Government in London?
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Tony Burman
No comments:
Post a Comment