Topic: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy

[E.R. Campbell]

Here, reproduced from today's National Post under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is the first of a multi-part article about Canada's foreign policy:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=127714

Harper's foreign policy anti-doctrine
A nuanced foreign policy, but a foreign policy still

John Ivison, National Post  Published: Wednesday, November 28, 2007

KAMPALA, Uganda -Entebbe airport has seen its share of dramatic arrivals. In July, 1976, Israeli commandos stormed the terminal building to rescue 103 Jewish passengers taken prisoner by Palestinian terrorists given sanctuary by Idi Amin's brutal regime. The bullet holes on the tower, still clearly visible, testify to the ferocity of the attack.

Then there are the less auspicious landings, such as Stephen Harper's arrival for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. Dressed in a mismatched light grey jacket and charcoal pants, he stepped off the government Airbus, gave an awkward wave to the cameras, accepted a bouquet from a young Ugandan girl and beat a hasty retreat. The next day's New Vision newspaper identified a "Canadian official" being greeted at the airport.

It's fair to say Mr. Harper has yet to make his mark on the world stage. He is clearly ill at ease in this world of limousines, red carpets, protocol and forced small talk. Yet, while the grip-and-grin aspect of foreign policy seem to hold no allure for Mr. Harper, it is a subject that, nearly two years into his premiership, he has taken to with some enthusiasm.

The recent Speech from the Throne signalled how important foreign affairs have become to this government: The first of five new priorities it spelled out is the need to strengthen Canada's sovereignty and place in the world.

Trying to divine what this emerging policy will mean for Canada is a study in nuance. There is no Harper Doctrine, no grand vision similar to Paul Martin's much-vaunted International Policy Statement. In fact, the most obvious constant is a Seinfeldian desire to do the opposite -- since every instinct the Liberals had was wrong, then doing the opposite would have to be right, so the partisan logic goes.

But there are other fundamentals. Senior Conservatives tout three important differences they see between their own foreign policy and that of the Liberals: principles, practicality and leadership.

They argue that Liberal governments talked a good game on freedom, human rights and democracy but were ultimately prepared to sacrifice their principles at the trade altar, if the need arose.

They also portray Liberal foreign policy as impractical -- citing Paul Martin's desire for an "L20" of world leaders, with no clear plan for what it would actually do. By contrast, they say they have a more "clear-eyed" appraisal of Canada's interests than the Liberals ever had.

Finally, they contend that Mr. Harper has the leadership qualities to take difficult decisions and live with them, in a way that no recent Liberal leader has been able to match.

These fundamentals are at the root of a new way that Canada is interacting with the rest of the world -- applied on a case-by-case basis to give us a foreign policy that sees itself as a departure from the Liberal world of do-gooding peacekeepers and conciliators. In the Conservative mind, Liberal thinking harked back to a fabled Pearsonian era that never really existed, where Canada was the Rotary Club of nations, pursuing selfless acts in the interests of the global community, and coating every initiative in a layer of self-congratulation. The Conservatives want no part of that service club mentality and have a more forthright, even prickly, style when it comes to dealing with other countries.

The practical implications are a framework in which relations with the United States are managed more effectively; where the Americas ("our backyard", according to Mr. Harper) takes precedence over Africa, which was always a priority for the Liberals; where multi-lateral institutions such as the United Nations, which the Conservatives see as being controlled by states that do not share our values, are accorded less importance, while those that reflect our values more closely, such as the Commonwealth, are elevated in status.

Conservatives want Canada to be taken seriously once again for its military; that there be no equivocating on our position on Israel and terrorism; and to make clear that Ottawa is willing to risk offence to champion its views.

Mr. Harper's trip to Kampala offered up two examples of the Canadian government taking a firm position and refusing to retreat, explain or apologize, even when it upsets staunch allies.

When the case of Pakistan's membership of the Commonwealth came up, following the crackdown on democracy by General Pervez Musharraf, Canada pushed for expulsion while others prevaricated. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown wavered publicly after talking to Mr. Musharraf, who had assured him reforms were coming. But Canada pursued a hard line and was instrumental in the achievement of a consensus on expulsion.

On climate change, Mr. Harper's unbending approach pitted him against the bulk of the 53-member organization, underlining both his distrust of multilateral organizations and his determination to focus on Canada's interests even at the expense of international brotherhood. His refusal to sign on to a climate-change resolution that called for "binding commitments" on developed countries -- but not big polluters like India -- brought him a string of negative headlines at home and the emnity of Britain's Mr. Brown. The new British Prime Minister came to Kampala looking for results on climate change to help portray himself as more environmentally-friendly than his Conservative rival, David Cameron, and perhaps more crucially, greener than his predecessor, Tony Blair.

Last summer at the G-8 summit at Heiligendamm, Germany, Mr. Blair and Mr. Harper signed a communique that, at U.S. President George W. Bush's behest, incorporated the biggest greenhouse-gas emitters in the developing world, China and India. Mr. Harper has long argued that agreeing to a framework that does not include all major emitters is a recipe for failure that would exacerbate the shortcomings of the Kyoto Protocol.

Canada maintained this position in Kampala, while Mr. Brown pushed for India to be excluded. Ottawa had a legitimate case for arguing it was simply sticking to an existing position expressed at both the G-8 and APEC summits.

As Mr. Harper argued with conviction at the end of the conference, Canada is intent on ensuring what he called the "Kyoto mistake" is not repeated.

"We already did that, where one-third of countries said they would accept binding targets and let's hope the rest fall into line. We're already there and it doesn't work."

For two days, none of the Canadian journalists in Kampala saw Mr. Harper or any of his communications advisers, a vacuum that allowed British diplomats to suggest Canada was in climate-change denial. After the storm broke, Canadian officials worked through the night, muttering darkly about "certain countries being less than helpful" in ensuring any final text included large emitters.

The effort eventually paid off, as the official communique emerged without any mention of binding targets for the major developed nations. In a news conference, the Prime Minister was unapologetic, painting Canada's position as moderate. "There are extremes, there are European countries that think that you can have binding regulation only on the developed countries. Likewise there are certain developing countries that believe the same thing. But those are two extremes of the debate -- that's not where the middle ground is and that's not where an eventual agreement is going to end up," he said.

While Mr. Harper may be prepared to upset the British, Canada's second biggest trading partner with $21-billion of two-way trade annually, he has clearly absorbed the maxim that Canadian needs to remain friendly with the United States, with whom we do $2-billion of business every day, while preserving independence and self-respect.

Conservatives chafed at the Liberals' habit of paying lip service to the importance of U.S. relations, while simultaneously pandering to anti-American sentiment they considered useful in winning elections. Mr. Harper was unequivocal in supporting the Iraq invasion in 2003, an issue he saw as a test of Canada's reliability as an ally and its sense of international responsibility.

He accused then-prime minister Jean Chretien of indulging in "juvenile and insecure anti-Americanism" based on polls showing Canadians wanted to stay out of the conflict. "It has left us standing for nothing, no realistic alternatives, no point of principle and no vision of the future," he said in the House of Commons.

While Mr. Harper saw principles at stake in Iraq, since coming to power his relations with Washington have been guided largely by practical considerations, according to one Conservative. "People think that we love America, that we love George Bush. But it is based on a clear-eyed assessment of our interests that requires careful management," he said.

Mr. Harper sees the value of closer relations with the United States, but is also aware of the danger of appearing too chummy with the President. There will be none of the tuxedos and crooning Brian Mulroney enjoyed with Ronald Reagan, or the mulligan-laden golf matches Jean Chretien shared with Bill Clinton. After some early visits, Mr. Harper's contacts with Mr. Bush have been limited to multinational gatherings.

The two countries have agreed to disagree on the question of Arctic sovereignty, an issue at the top of Mr. Harper's agenda. Before officially becoming Prime Minister, Mr. Harper staked out his position by publicly admonishing the American ambassador, David Wilkins, for his opposition to Canada deploying icebreakers in the Arctic. "It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States," Mr. Harper said.

Relations on other issues have been cordial.

Canada has made a number of moves certain to win approval in Washington, including overt and unapologetic support for Israel and the decision to extend the mandate for Canada's mission in Afghanistan. Both moves have drawn attacks as evidence of Mr. Harper taking his cue from Mr Bush; but both also mirror traditional conservative views and could as easily have been adopted no matter who was residing in the White House.

And Conservatives would argue that good neighbours make good business, noting that Harper's government was able to finally win a ceasefire, if not complete victory, in the longrunning-softwood lumber war, and seems to be successfully resisting U.S. efforts to tighten Canadians' easy access at border crossings.

Meanwhile, Canada has been moving to carve out a place for itself elsewhere in the Americas. Ottawa has been active in promoting trade and democracy in such countries as Colombia, where a free-trade deal is being negotiated. Many parts of Latin America and the Caribbean are a "no-go" area politically for the United States but Canada has none of Washington's baggage and sees a leadership role for itself in helping create a group of stable liberal democracies in a region where we do nearly $40-billion of trade every year. As Douglas Bland, professor and chair of Defence Studies at Queen's University, put it recently: "The old jest is that Canada is a regional power without a region so perhaps we can find one in the western hemisphere."

This search for new alliances reflects in part the Conservatives' deep disillusionment with established avenues of multi-lateral action, such as the United Nations. Mr. Harper has never been much of a multilateralist, and recent events can hardly have given him faith in the UN as a venue for protecting liberal democracy. Canada's most recent effort to censure Iran's human rights record squeaked though by just two votes. Seventy-eight countries voted with Iran, including Afghanistan, which Canada had reason to assume would support its cause. For the Conservatives it's just another example of the unreliability of the UN, which it sees as too beholden to countries lacking in democratic values, and too reluctant to embrace action over talk.

Mr. Harper's willingness to jettison past verities has brought predictable attacks. Former Conservative prime minister Joe Clark recently accused Mr. Harper of turning his back on a six-decade tradition of "effective internationalism." Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae says we have lost the sense of humanitarian leadership we once had.

Reiterating the Liberal line that Mr. Harper is too closely aligned with George W. Bush, Mr. Rae pointed to Colombia as an example. "Colombia is the most egregious human rights violator in the Americas, next to Cuba. Harper goes to places like Haiti and Colombia, where he feels he can go without too much fuss and then get quoted by Bush. There is a sense of being a kind of surrogate," he said.

While there is an audience for such anti-American sentiment, the Conservatives have decided the national interest demands we abandon the pretense of moral superiority and position Canada as a reliable ally with the ability to assume responsibilities. Mr. Harper said in New York in October: "Success demands governments who have a voice and influence in global affairs because they lead, not by lecturing, but by example…Canada's back, not because of new rhetoric or electoral promises, but because we are rebuilding our capabilities."

What remains to be seen is whether Canada benefits from Mr. Harper's tougher line. The Conservatives would argue that dividends are already being paid. In Uganda he almost single-handedly faced down the campaign for climate-change restrictions he viewed as ineffective and played an important role in dealing with Pakistan. The government can claim to have finally won a ceasefire with the United States on the softwood war, and appears to have tempered Washington's worst instincts when it comes to border control.

Conservatives also point to a rise in trade with China as proof that public criticism of that country's human-rights record has not harmed economic relations. But the bulldozer approach can do little to help Canada unleash the unrealized potential of India, where we do less than $6-billion of trade annually, and of China for Canadian goods and services in the long run. As Mr. Rae said: "They don't understand that in countries like India and China, economic leadership and political leadership go together."

"Mr. Harper is on firm ground when he acts to protect the country's security and prosperity, but veers into territory dangerously close to Mr. Bush's global crusade to spread freedom and democracy when he talks of Canada as a 'North Star' or guiding light to less fortunate nations. As we have seen in Iraq, such interventions are often less than clear-eyed in their assessment."

Heads of government may not yet be hanging on to Mr. Harper's every word yet -- as he gave his closing remarks in Kampala, Uganda's President Museveni seemed to be nodding off. But they are learning that this is a Canadian Prime Minister who has the courage of his convictions and who brushes off criticism as the cost of leadership. As Mr. Harper himself put it in his closing news conference in Kampala: "For the first time in a very long time, Canada's voice is being heard and a consequence of its voice being heard is that we're getting the changes we want to see. That's what a country with an active foreign policy does."

It may not have been the raid on Entebbe, but Mr. Harper does seem to have left Uganda with his mission accomplished.

jivison@nationalpost.com

I'll comment at greater length when the series is finished but, for the moment, while I understand, I guess, the Conservatives' desire to distance themselves from Liberal style and substance (although, in some instances, I would argue that the Martin Liberals were headed towards the right track) a clear, comprehensive policy statement would be helpful, if only to do what Ivison is doing here: telling Canadians what their government is doing.

[GAP]

These fundamentals are at the root of a new way that Canada is interacting with the rest of the world -- applied on a case-by-case basis to give us a foreign policy that sees itself as a departure from the Liberal world of do-gooding peacekeepers and conciliators. In the Conservative mind, Liberal thinking harked back to a fabled Pearsonian era that never really existed, where Canada was the Rotary Club of nations, pursuing selfless acts in the interests of the global community, and coating every initiative in a layer of self-congratulation. The Conservatives want no part of that service club mentality and have a more forthright, even prickly, style when it comes to dealing with other countries.

I find it refreshing.....The Liberals always were wandering around the world trying to do goody thingys.....I kept waiting for the Canadian Government to take a position on something, and they seldom did, and even then it was ambivalent....

[Old Sweat]

The following story from this week's Embassy Times which is reproduced under the fair comment section of the Copyright Act puts a different spin on Canadian foreign policy:

Embassy, November 28th, 2007
NEWS STORY

Recent Foreign Policy Shifts Raising Allies' Eyebrows
Stances on major issues appear to be isolating Canada, and have many wondering where the country is headed on the international stage.
By Lee Berthiaume
Canada will not try to "appease" any other nation with its foreign policy, but clearly lay out and stand up for its values on the world stage, Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary to the Foreign Affairs minister, said last week.

"When we are at all the multilateral institutions with our friends, the European Union and everything, it's not like we are trying to appease anybody," Mr. Obhrai said. "We are just laying down what Canadian policies are, and that's where we stand, and that's going to be the policy of this government."

Officials at two European missions at the United Nations, meanwhile, have expressed disappointment and concern over Canada's recent positions on several issues, and warned the country's reputation is on the line.

Over the past few months, the government has found itself defending its position on a variety of foreign policy issues at the UN and other fora.

The most recent came this past weekend in Uganda when Canada was blamed for blocking a Commonwealth climate change declaration that would have required binding targets for developed countries, but not developing ones.

In defending his opposition to the original declaration, Prime Minister Stephen Harper reasserted his belief that his government is not only delivering results for Canada on the world stage, but is positioning itself as a leader on major international issues.

"For the first time in a very long time, Canada's voice is being heard, and the consequence of our voice being heard is we're getting the changes we want to see," Mr. Harper said. "In all of these cases, we've taken strong and clear positions at all of these international forums, particularly on the difficult issue of climate change."

A watered down declaration eventually passed, but the disappointment was apparent by comments made by some Commonwealth officials and country leaders.

"In some way I do feel a little bit disappointed," Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was widely quoted as telling reporters following the summit on Sunday when asked about Canada's position. "We would like to see the developed countries taking a lead role."

Ironically, Mr. Badawi was much more optimistic about Australia, long a pariah on the climate change file, following the weekend's victory by the country's Labour Party in elections.

"[Labour Party leader Kevin Rudd] will ratify the Kyoto protocol and I think that is good news," Mr. Badawi said.

Canada has also been heavily criticized for being one of four countries to vote against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, and for refusing to co-sponsor a European Union-led moratorium on the death penalty, though it did support it.

It has also refused to seek clemency for Canadians sentenced to death in the United States and other "democratic" nations, which prompted particularly harsh criticism from Council of Europe secretary-general Terry Davies, whose organization is responsible for promoting human rights on the continent.

"I'm just amazed that the Canadian government would wash its hands, just like Pontius Pilate," Mr. Davies told CanWest news service. "In effect, what I think is that the people in government in Canada are subcontracting the death penalty."

Last week, Canada called on UN member states for the fifth year in a row to censure Iran over its human rights record. The resolution passed 72-50 with 55 abstentions, but an earlier Iranian effort to throw out the resolution came within two votes of being accepted.

Analysts have said Canada narrowly avoided embarrassment at the UN, and that the fact that the Iranian effort came so close to succeeding was intended as a signal to Canada.

Mr. Obhrai, however, dismissed such statements.

"One has to understand we won, which shows quite a big support for the Canadians," he said. "No matter how many voted one way, nevertheless, the fact of the matter is we won."

Mr. Obhrai said the foreign affairs minister had "worked very hard" to bolster support for the resolution, and "the number who voted on that should not reflect Canada's standing in the world."

However, Mr. Obhrai said no matter the results of the vote, Canada will continue to stand for human rights, rule of law and the promotion of democracy–"the cornerstones of the new government's foreign policy."

"These are called Canadian values, and we are pursuing that, period," he said. "We are not out to win or lose, we are out to put Canada's position on the world stage. You remember we said we were going to take a very strong stand on the international front, and we are doing that."

According to one Western European diplomat posted to the UN in New York from a country that has been closely allied with Canada, there has been a noticeable shift in Canadian policy since the summer of 2006, and a shift in the way Canada is looked upon by other countries.


Canada Seen as Pro-U.S.: Envoy

Former Canadian ambassador to the UN Paul Heinbecker said that when a country takes a position on certain issues, it leads to changes in how other member states perceive it.

Climate change and Israel are two so-called "definitional issues," and Canada has become much more pro-Israeli than ever before–which lends itself to being identified as pro-American–and strayed from the Kyoto protocol, both of which send strong messages, Mr. Heinbecker said.

"Those UN votes, those are symbols," he said. "So when we find it necessary to change our position, but nobody else feels it necessary to change their position, it sends a clear signal as to how we want to be seen."

The European diplomat, who requested anonymity so he could speak freely, said it's likely no coincidence that countries started looking at Canada differently around the time it openly supported Israel during its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

"Yes, that belongs to the old perception that Canada is closer to the U.S., and is shifting towards that," said the diplomat, who consulted with his colleagues prior to the interview to ensure he had a complete picture.

Of particular note to the diplomat was that Canada was once a leader on not only indigenous rights issues, but also women's rights, but it has since cooled its heels on the two files.

"Where Canada was at the forefront [before], it is less at the forefront, or just normal," the diplomat said. "We don't exactly know if it's because the negotiations by themselves are difficult...which will make some countries to be less at the forefront than they were, or whether there were some instructions from Ottawa."

On climate change and the death penalty, "it's more of the same," the diplomat added.

While Canada remains "a main partner and still very active" with his country, the diplomat said, "by other countries like the [Group of 77 developing nations], there is a perception that Canada is closer and closer to the U.S., and maybe sometimes there is a perception that they go along the double standards line for some developing countries, and they are less closer to their position than they were in the past."

"It's something we feel and analyze rather than an obvious truth, and we don't know if there have been instructions given from Ottawa or something more complex," he added.

In an email interview last Saturday, former Progressive Conservative prime minister Joe Clark said, "One of Canada's real assets is that we enjoy a high general standing within both the developed and developing worlds."

"That is not unique–nations like the Scandinavians, Australia, others have similar present or historic credentials, although few of those reach as widely as Canada can."

Critics have accused the Conservative government of actively following American foreign policy, citing Canada's voting with the United States, Israel and Australia on key files.

Making reference to Canada's allies over the past few months, Mr. Clark said Canada is currently running a deficit between performance and standing, which cannot be continued if the country is to maintain its position on the world stage.

"Our reputation now is stronger then our performance," he said, "so that is not a static asset–it has to be renewed and exercised, both by a general readiness and capacity to consider initiatives, and by the active company we keep."


Allies Confused, Disappointed

Another Western European envoy posted to the UN, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said some of the positions set out by Canada have confused member states.

"The resolution on the death penalty...it's absolutely fair to say that, yes, we were disappointed that Canada was unable to co-sponsor the resolution," she said. "We did not see any national, or any reasons of national law, in Canadian national law, to be reluctant with regard to co-sponsorship.

"We would have wished for Canada to be among the strongest supporters of that resolution."

The envoy said Canada remains a strong and positive multilateral and international player, and that at this point it's too early to say whether there has been a real, discernible trend. However, she noted the company Canada kept in voting against the indigenous rights declaration.

"Our impression here was that Canada rightly prides itself for its excellent relations with its own indigenous population," she said, "and with regards to that resolution or declaration, they found themselves in the camp of countries where it's not as evident that there are good relations between the majority and the indigenous people, like Australia."

When read Mr. Obhrai's quote that Canada does not seek to appease anyone and will stand up for its principles, the envoy said other countries will be watching to see how things play out.

However, she warned that the UN needs bridge builders more than ever as the North-South gap appears to be widening.

"We would like to see Canada on our side there because those bridge builders are needed," she said. "I think it's too early to say whether those issues we just talked about can serve as an indication that Canada has shifted with regarding to be a bridge builder. It's too early to say, but we in the EU still need Canada on our side."

[Zip]

As I think of riots in France, Belgium without a functioning government for 150 days, the English bending over backwards to placate increasingly radical minorities, the cartoon fiasco, prominent figures murdered for expressing free speech, I try, really try to give a damn what Europe thinks...  but I can't.

[Jammer]

Pompous, arrogant, self serving, rightous, and holier-then thou.
The European Union
How soon history is forgotten.

[Aden_Gatling]

100% with Recce & Jammer: the "if enough Europeans can be bribed or coerced into agreement, it is morally right" attitude reflects FAR worse on them than it does on us (if I gave a rat's *** what European politicos have to say about us).

[Kirkhill]

....we in the EU still need Canada on our side."

And there you have it....picking sides.

[Thucydides]

Rather than seeing this as "doctrine" or "anti-doctrine", I would suggest that we are seeing a shift towards articulating and advancing our National Interests over content free statements of "values".

This is not to say our National Interests don't reflect our values, what is disconcerting for some people seems to be the idea that you actually have to *do* something to exercise and support the vaklues you espouse.
 

[Zip]

"This is not to say our National Interests don't reflect our values, what is disconcerting for some people seems to be the idea that you we have actually have decided to *do* something to exercise and support the values you we espouse.

 

[E.R. Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post is the second part of John Ivison’s series on Canada’s foreign policy:

Ottawa wants to pare down its 'bloated' list of foreign aid recipients
Part 2: Harper's Foreign Policy

John Ivison, National Post  Published: Thursday, November 29, 2007

KAMPALA, Uganda - The children of the Little Stars primary school in Kawempe swayed in their purple uniforms, waved small Canadian flags and sang a song in praise of sanitation that would have moved even the most flint-hearted of observers.

Students from this abject, squalid slum of 300,000, which clings stubbornly to the slopes of Kampala, were giving thanks for new latrines installed by the Nairobi-based African Medical and Research Foundation, which receives $2-million a year in Canadian aid. Until now, the children had to squat over an evil-smelling and clearly unsanitary hole in the ground.

"It makes me very happy that my country is helping you," said Kampala-born Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer, who was touring the slum with his fiancee, Helena Guergis, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

This is the kind of project Canadians imagine they are funding for the $4-billion a year Ottawa spends on foreign aid. But the criteria by which Canada judges who gets development assistance and who doesn't are about to change, and in future Uganda may miss out. Simply being poor might not cut it any more.

The Conservative government is reviewing the operations of the Canadian International Development Agency, and it's clear it has different ideas of how the aid budget should be spent, and where.

If it adopts the recommendations of a Senate report issued this year -- "that's what we are working on, for sure," said new CIDA Minister Bev Oda -- money will go to fewer countries and be more carefully targeted.

The Senate committee stressed good government and responsible economic practices over aid for health and education spending, which it likened to welfare. More priority would be given to economic development, including technical assistance and training, skills development and technology transfers, the raising of agricultural productivity, and the expansion of support for privately delivered micro-finance services.

It also recommends Canada should support "good performers" because, in the words of the report, "the current eligibility list is bloated and illogical." The Harper Conservatives agree strongly with the proposal.

Governments have sought to reform Canada's aid policy before. Ottawa devotes 0.3% of gross national income to foreign aid, far short of the 0.46% average among countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, never mind the United Nations' target of 0.7%. The budget has been rising 8% a year to meet the goal of doubling the 2001-02 budget of $2.9-billion by 2010-11--al-though Finance Department estimates indicate that strong financial growth will mean even after doubling, aid will slip slightly in percentage terms. The Conservatives have also committed to doubling the amount Canada spends on aid in Africa from $1.05-billion in 2003-04 to $2.1-billion next year.

The government seems intent on shaping a more "conservative" aid program for that money, and has been helped by ample evidence the current regime isn't working. Study after study suggests taxpayers do not get value for money. Last month's OECD report is just the latest to suggest that Canada spreads its aid too thinly --46 countries in Africa alone at last count. Canada, the report said, needs a "clear, simple and consistent vision for development assistance." The report by the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs was even harsher. Bluntly titled Overcoming 40 Years of Failure, it concluded the Canadian International Development Agency was no longer a development organization but one that dispenses charity around the globe.

"Since its inception in 1968, CIDA has spent $12.4-billion in bilateral assistance to sub-Saharan Africa, with little in the way of demonstrable results," it said. "Canada has attempted to do too much in too many countries -- thus, our aid in each recipient country has little impact," it added, noting that Canada gave aid to 161 countries in 2003-04, compared to Norway, which focused its efforts on seven main countries.

Hugh Segal, who chaired the Senate report, said CIDA is a top-heavy department that spends 15% more than its peers in other countries to distribute every dollar of aid. Hit with budgetary cuts in the 1990s that axed overseas positions, it has 80% of its staff based in the Ottawa region.

One former CIDA executive who left the organization in frustration said the agency is in a "dysfunctional and demoralized state."

"Problems emanating from a strictly centralized agency are immense. In addition to too few field staff, total withdrawal of decision-making from the field staff that do exist does not serve an agency whose client is not Canada but in the field. Managers sitting at CIDA headquarters, with little knowledge or understanding of the field realities but who hold supreme centralized authority, too often ignore the analysis and advice coming from the field," the former executive said.

Keith Martin, the Liberal critic on foreign aid who once worked as a doctor on the South African-Mozambique border, said he has seen CIDA's shortcomings first hand. "Billions are poured into CIDA and only a trickle of it is seen on the ground."

Yet CIDA has its defenders. Robert Calderisi, whose book The Trouble with Africa: Why Foreign Aid Isn't Working was based on 30 years experience in Africa (including three with CIDA), said it is no better or worse than other aid agencies around the world. "Decentralization of more of its personnel to the field is not likely to transform its results," he said in an e-mail exchange. "CIDA tried this approach in the 1980s and 1990s and decided it was just too expensive, rather than expensive and effective. Much more important is to decentralize decision-making to existing country offices, rather than making mass transfers of personnel from Ottawa to Bangui or Ouagadougou."

Stephen Harper appears to accept that the current program needs a radical overhaul. He told an audience in New York recently that the government would be announcing measures to make the distribution of aid more effective "in the coming weeks."

Quite what shape that plan will take remains unclear but, counter-intuitively for a government that wants to abolish the institution, the Conservatives are big fans of Senate reports, often implementing their recommendations in full. Proposals urged by the report include: - Aid to Africa should focus on economic development rather than social welfare. - Ottawa should consider abolishing CIDA and shifting responsibility to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. - A minimum of 80% of staff in the Africa office should work in Africa, with authority to make decisions and allocate spending. - Aid to Africa should go to countries "aggressively" undertaking reforms to improve governance, develop private sectors and a favourable investment climate. - Aid should go to private sector and civil society groups, rather than supporting governments. - Countries receiving aid should not be required to use it to buy products or services from Canada.

Such a dramatic shift in priorities could create its own problems, some believe. Mr. Calderisi said that separating "economic" aid from "social" aid is a false distinction. "It would be wrong for Canada to abandon key [social] services until the job is done. Too many African countries still have too few children [especially girls] in school and too many have clinics without medicines." But he is strongly in agreement with the key recommendation that Canada support "good performers." Existing aid budgets should be used more effectively by focusing on a smaller number of countries that have demonstrated over 15 or 20 years that they are on the same wavelength as Western donors.

While such countries as Ghana, Tanzania and Mozambique have earned their place on Canada's favoured list of 25 "development partners," others on the list -- like Ethiopia, Kenya and Pakistan -- would be difficult to describe as "good performers."

CIDA's bureaucracy is such that it claims it cannot provide a list of current aid recipients or how much they receive (even though the government was able to reveal Tanzania's aid allocation for this year in an announcement this week). But Kenya regularly places near the top of the list of the world's most corrupt countries, and Ethiopia received $108-million in direct aid in 2004-05, when there were mass killings on the streets of Addis Ababa and tens of thousands of opposition supporters were rounded up after elections that many say were rigged. Human Rights Watch rates its human rights record as "extremely grim."

Even Uganda, the host of the Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM) meeting this month, faces accusations of human rights abuses and lack of democracy. President Yoweri Museveni, who gained power by force and has held it for 20 years, pushed through a constitutional amendment allowing him to serve yet another term. The leader of the main opposition party, Kizza Besigye, told journalists that murder, corruption and intimidation are systemic. He called the decision to award CHOGM to Uganda the height of hypocrisy for an organization dedicated to human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Despite the well-documented problems of CIDA, previous reform efforts have run aground. In 2003, the Liberal government said it would target six "countries of concentration" in Africa, but the number more than doubled after lobbying from countries that would see their funding axed. The Liberals' Dr. Martin supports a cut in the number of countries receiving aid. "Tough choices will have to be made. You can't be all things to all people."

Not everyone is likely to agree. There are 550 Canadian non-governmental organizations working on African causes, and they will be forming an orderly line outside the CBC to decry any government decisions that threaten their projects. Alexa Mc-Donough, the NDP development aid critic, said she finds the prospect of the government implementing any aspect of the Senate report "heart-breaking and horrifying."

"[Their]prescription is 100% wrong. If we shut down a number of countries because we are continuing to deliver overseas development aid at one-third the level we should be doing, it will be inconceivable to many people."

It appears the Conservatives are prepared for the ruckus that will erupt when they announce that some countries have been cut off. "People are going to complain but that's leadership. You have to put up with the consequences," said one Conservative.

Ms. Oda said she is confident that this government can succeed where others have failed. "We are committed to work on focusing so we can make an impact. …We are not motivated by the political objectives of responding to countries where the need isn't as great," she said.

Back in the Kawempe slum, up the hill and left at the open sewer from Little Stars school, Nakayimi Nassolo, 80, sat outside her one-room home, with her 16 grandchildren, all of whom live with her because her four children died from HIV. A new water stand pipe and communal latrine have just been installed outside her shack. In a country where few reach age 50, and such small changes can affect the life expectancy of her grandchildren, Canada's imminent decision carries considerable implications.

----------

Reform proposals for Canadian aid would target countries that pursue clean government and democratic values. It's an area several Commonwealth countries have struggled with.

UGANDA
President Yoweri Museveni Uganda has yet to enjoy a peaceful handover of power. Milton Obote, prime minister at independence in 1962, was ousted while at a Commonwealth prime ministers' conference in 1971 by Idi Amin, who was overthrown in 1979. Obote returned, but was forced out by Museveni after a five-year bush war that ended in 1986. Museveni has been President ever since, blocking elections for 10 years, then banning parties from contesting the 1996 vote, which he won. Won again in 1991, defied the constitution to run a third time in 2006, and imprisoned his main rival, ensuring victory.

PAKISTAN
President Pervez Musharraf Fourth in a line of military chiefs who have run the country for nearly half its 60 years of independence. Pakistan quit the Commonwealth in 1972 to protest its recognition of its breakaway eastern territory, now Bangladesh, but rejoined in 1989. Suspended again in 1999, readmitted in 2003. On Nov. 12 Gen. Musharraf was given 10 days to restore the constitution and lift other emergency measures. Has now stepped down as military leader and promises democratic elections in January.

FIJI
President Ratu Josefa Iloilo Joined Commonwealth after independence in 1970, but tensions between indigenous Fijians (mainly Methodist) and immigrant Indians (Hindus) have led to at least four military coups and interruption of democratic rule. Suspended from Commonwealth in 1987-97, 2000-2001 and most recently in December, 2006. Latest coup led by Commodore Josaia Voreqe (Frank) Bainimarama, the military chief. President Iloilo allegedly signed an order dissolving parliament (he later denied doing so). Bainimarama is now acting prime minister.

NIGERIA
President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua Regularly tops list of world's most corrupt countries after years of repressive military leaders. Now experiencing longest period of civilian rule since independence in 1960, with election of Umaru Musa Yar'Adua to succeed Olusegun Obasanjo in April, 2007. Elections were considered significantly flawed by Nigerian and international observers but also marked first civilian-to-civilian transfer of power in country's history, although Obasanjo is a former military man. Suspended from Commonwealth in 1997 for executing Nobel prize winner Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight friends. Rejoined in 1999 after General Abdulsalami Abubakar promised to restore democracy.

ZIMBABWE
President Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe was suspended for one year in 2002 over concerns with the electoral and land reform policies of President Mugabe. Unilaterally withdrew in 2003 after the suspension was extended. Was suspended from the Commonwealth under the country's former name of Southern Rhodesia from its unilateral declaration of independence in 1965 until its internationally recognized independence as Zimbabwe in 1980. Now an economic basket case and international pariah, subject to sanctions, travel bans and asset freezes.

SOUTH AFRICA
President Thabo Mbeki South Africa became a republic and withdrew from the Commonwealth in 1961 because of hostility from many members, particularly those in Africa and Asia as well as Canada, to its policy of apartheid. Country was under economic sanctions of varying degrees for the next two decades. Following the release of Nelson Mandela and end of apartheid, South Africa has held several democratic elections and emerged as a potent force in Africa.

[GAP]

The huge Aid/NGO community loves governments that pay out of guilt for doing little. It creates whole careers. 

[S.M.A.]

SOUTH AFRICA
President Thabo Mbeki South Africa became a republic and withdrew from the Commonwealth in 1961 because of hostility from many members, particularly those in Africa and Asia as well as Canada, to its policy of apartheid. Country was under economic sanctions of varying degrees for the next two decades. Following the release of Nelson Mandela and end of apartheid, South Africa has held several democratic elections and emerged as a potent force in Africa.

I am surprised South Africa is on the list of these so-called "air recipients". I guess I just assumed before that South Africa was a First-World nation since it was one of those self-ruling Dominion countries within the British Empire before and still is a regional power in its corner of the globe, though I believe that Apartheid must have had quite an impact on the economic and social well-being of the whole nation, if you count both the majority and minority populations. I even read that they supposedly had their own nuclear weapons program which was later cancelled, though that has little to do with the topic of this thread.

[E.R. Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, are the first two parts of a series on foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080421.wcomment0421/BNStory/National   

Canada's World: Part I
Should Canada unhitch its American wagon?

MARCUS GEE

April 21, 2008 at 8:12 PM EDT

Asia's renaissance has produced two emerging powers: China and India. Along with Brazil and Mexico, these states challenge Canada's economic and foreign policy.

How can Canada balance its economic and political priorities in a way that supports Canadian interests, values, and assets?

Should Canada deepen its integration in North America, or should it refocus its priorities on other continents, especially on Asia?

To consider the options, globeandmail.com has asked three foreign-policy specialists to give us their thoughts and lead us in a discussion.

Tuesday: Marcus Gee, The Globe and Mail’s Asia-Pacific reporter, argues that in this changing landscape we should deepen, not forsake, our close ties to the United States.


Wednesday: Gordon Smith, a former deputy foreign affairs minister and director of the University of Victoria’s Centre for Global Studies.


Thursday: Yuen Pau Woo, president of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.


Question and Answer: Join in the discussion Thursday on globeandmail.com

CANADA'S WORLD: PART 1

Should Canada unhitch its wagon from the United States? A growing number of Canadians seem to think so. Polls show that a striking number of us view our giant neighbour as an irresponsible, even dangerous, superpower. The war in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Hurricane Katrina, President George W. Bush — all these have served to alienate Canadians (and others around the world) from a country that used to be an admired friend and ally.

Meanwhile, the economic troubles south of the border — corporate corruption, the subprime mortgage crisis, the rising threat of recession — have made the United States look like an unreliable economic partner, too. So if the United States is in decline, both as a world leader and a trading partner, shouldn't Canada think about hedging its bets by drawing closer to other countries and regions? The emergence of booming China and India as potential great powers has produced an apparent alternative to our traditional reliance on the Americans. Instead of always looking south, why not turn out gaze to the east?

As tempting as it is, Canadians should resist this line of thinking for two reasons. The first is that for all its troubles, the United States is not washed up yet. Far from it. Its global stature has been badly damaged by Mr. Bush's presidency, but popularity isn't everything.

Ronald Reagan was much loathed and derided outside his homeland too. The United States is bound to bounce back as a world leader when new leadership takes charge next year. In any case, there is no real alternative. In terms of sheer muscle — military, financial, diplomatic — no country can rival it.

Remember that, in the 1980s, it was widely assumed that the age of U.S. dominance was coming to an end. Historian Paul Kennedy, pointing to Washington's rising debts, among other things, said the country was suffering from "imperial overstretch" and would soon lose its superpower status. In the same vein, it was predicted that a rising Japan would overtake the United States as the world's top economic power, just it is predicted today that India and China will.

In the event, the U.S. economy came back to experience its longest postwar expansion while Japan went into a period of stagnation from which it has still not fully recovered. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington was heralded not just as one of the superpowers, but the world's only superpower. It still is. U.S. military spending is greater than that of the European Union, China and Russia combined. Its economy is still the locomotive of the world economy, and of course by far the biggest market for Canadians goods and services.

The second reason for not hitching up to new wagons is that, well, their wheels could come off. China's rise is a wonder to behold and India's dynamism inspiring, but both have immense problems. China has rural poverty, an export-addicted economy, epic pollution, restive minorities (such as the Tibetans) and, worst of all, an archaic political system ill-equipped to deal with these problems. India has corruption, crumbling infrastructure, a lacklustre education system and persistent divisions of caste, language and ethnicity.

Naturally, we should try to maintain good relations with both (while remaining free to criticize when we must). And of course, we should do everything we can to drum up more trade, improving on Canada's sorry record at penetrating Asian markets.

But, in values as well as in geography, we are still closest to the United States — still the best friend, ally and trading partner we have, and far from a spent force.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080423.wcomment0423/BNStory/National/home

Canada's World: Part II
Canada's foreign-policy priorities

GORDON SMITH

April 23, 2008 at 12:06 AM EDT

CANADA'S WORLD: PART 2

The global landscape is changing. Canada must have a clearly articulated view of its own interests. It should pursue several complementary campaigns.

At the top of the list is enlarging the Group of Eight. We are a member of that exclusive club — and it is in danger of becoming irrelevant, precisely because it does not reflect the changing global landscape.

The world needs a "steering committee" — a limited group of leaders who meet for summits. The key players need to be there, whether we like all aspects of their domestic or international policies. Bluntly, we may not like what China is doing in Tibet, but the greater interest is engaging China in the management of our increasing global interdependence.

There are a number of critical related challenges. Canadians want to see an effective global response to the challenges of climate change, but that will not happen through exclusive reliance on the United Nations and its negotiation processes — leadership on climate change and a number of other global issues is required by a more specific group of countries.

This is partly why adding China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa to the G8 is imperative. These five countries have been invited to the past three summits "for dessert only"; they should be present for the entire menu. Only heads of government can deal with the complex mix of environment, energy, technology and development issues involved with fighting climate change.

Canada should take the lead with France in expanding the G8, an initiative French President Nicolas Sarkozy already supports. We are likely to see an increased U.S. interest in working through the multilateral system, particularly if Obama or Clinton win.

Second on the list: Creating middle-power groups to discuss issues not yet on the global agenda. For example, Canada could bring together countries most affected by climate change, focusing on impacts and adaptation. Or the growing concern about the increase in food prices. We should help ensure that those not represented at summits can make their voices heard.

Third: While we can work at deeper economic integration with the United States, there are limits to how far this can be extended to the Americas. The likelihood is that Washington will be taking a tougher line on environmental and labour standards in Mexico, and Mexico will be pushing its concerns about migrants to the United States. These are not fights where we want to be in the ring. As for political integration, there is no stomach for it anywhere.

Successive Canadian governments have tried to realign our trade toward first Britain, then Europe, then Asia. The result has been a steady increase in the percentage of our trade with the United States. That will not change. So yes, promote investment and trade with Europe and Asia, but have no illusion about the limits to what can be achieved. Our competitiveness is based on our institutions, tax structure, natural resources and human resources — and our privileged relationship with the United States. These must be the priorities.

Finally, Canadians should not have illusions about their government's ability to promote democracy and human rights around the world. Better we fix Canada's own problems with rights and economic opportunity. Our international activities should be focused where we can make a difference.

Above all, let us ensure Canada is in the room when major global issues are being tackled.

Marcus Gee, a pretty astute observer, in my opinion, provides pretty thin gruel. There’s nothing much to debate – but I’m sure the loud, sophomoric, knee-jerk anti-American crowd will find great cause for complaint.

Gordon Smith provides a bit more to chew on. He’s quite right in four points:

1.   ”The world needs a "steering committee" — a limited group of leaders who meet for summits.”

2.   We need to create (a) middle-power group(s) to address some key issues.

3.   “Canadians [and Americans, in my opinion] should not have illusions about their government's ability to promote democracy and human rights around the world ... Our international activities should be focused where we can make a difference.”

4.   “Let us ensure Canada is in the room when major global issues are being tackled.”

I agree, broadly with Smith’s four points but we part company on the details.

I agree with two global “steering committees,” one strategic and the other economic.

•   The strategic steering committee needs to replace augment the ineffective UNSC. It will, of necessity, be biased – otherwise it will share the fate of the UNSC: irrelevance. The strategic steering committee must, above all, be broadly acceptable to much of the world. To be credible it must include the USA. To be effective it must include only countries having few major disagreements with the USA’s values. That means capitalist democracies. My list includes Australia, Britain, Canada, India, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore and the USA.

•   The economic steering committee needs to augment the G8 and the WTO. It too needs limits. I suggest it start with being a group of groups: ASEAN, the EU,  Mercosur and NAFTA, plus, as independent members: America, China, India and Japan.

I have ranted on and on and on about reclaiming Louis St. Laurent’s vision of Canada as a “leading middle power.” That needs to happen but it will be a long, costly process because leaders cannot just be self proclaimed – they must first earn and then maintain their status. I believe Canadians want to be leaders and the government wants to make Canada a leader. I fear that governments are afraid to tell Canadians that they must pay a price – less pogey and more casualties.

The last two good points in Smith’s paper ought to be self evident.
 


   

[E.R. Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is the third of the three articles on Canadian foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080424.wcomment0424/BNStory/National/home

Canada's World: Part III
More Asia does not mean less North America
 
YUEN PAO WOO

Special to Globe and Mail Update
April 24, 2008 at 12:43 AM EDT

Tuesday: Marcus Gee, The Globe and Mail's Asia-Pacific reporter, argued that in this changing landscape we should deepen, not forsake, our close ties to the United States.


Yesterday: Gordon Smith, a former deputy foreign affairs minister and director of the University of Victoria’s Centre for Global Studies says the G8 should be expanded to include China, India and others.


Today: Yuen Pau Woo, president of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.


CANADA'S WORLD: PART 3

Our economic relationship with the United States is in a state of comfortable discontent. Despite perennial ambivalence about U.S. policies, we have taken solace in our superior access to the world's richest economy.

There is every reason to believe the United States will continue to be our most important market for the foreseeable future. But this complacency has been shaken by the recent American economic malaise. According to a national opinion poll released today by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, 36 per cent of Canadians believe China holds the most potential for expanded trade and investment, against 26 per cent for the United States. When asked whether Chinese and Indian global influence will equal that of the United States in 10 years, a resounding majority agreed.

Canadians may have noticed the global power shift toward Asia, but it is not yet clear that we are willing to adjust to it. It isn't simply that many Canadians harbour protectionist instincts (71 per cent support measures against imports from low-wage countries). The more fundamental challenge is that most Canadians do not include Asia in their mental maps. When asked "Is Canada part of the Asia Pacific region?", just 33 per cent of respondents agreed. Even in British Columbia, the number was just 57 per cent.

Our hopes about Asia's economic rise are conflicted by fears about product safety, environmental degradation, human-rights abuses and military conflict. Even if Canadians do not include Asia on their mental maps, there is growing awareness that the major transformations taking place there have global repercussions and that Canada is affected willy-nilly.

The question is not whether Canada should refocus its priorities toward Asia, as if the continent were a menu choice in an international smorgasbord. Rather, it's about how Canada should adjust to Asian countries' ineluctable global impact on everyday issues ranging from mortgage rates to air quality.

The most important actions to strengthen Canada's Asian ties are not just the standard list of diplomatic and commercial activities that are performed "over there". They are the painstaking investments in "Asia awareness" that have to be made right here in Canada: teaching about Asia and Asian languages in schools; encouraging our government, business, and university leaders to build long-term relationships with Asian counterparts; and fostering better-informed public discussion about the rise of Asia and relations with Asian countries.

More Asia does not mean less North America. Stronger economic ties with Asia will depend in part on deeper North American economic integration, especially on issues related to the Canada-U.S. border. But it will also depend on policies toward Asia that differentiate Canada from its NAFTA partners. For example, it is not in Canada's interest to jump on a protectionist bandwagon on the pretext of common continental challenges.

Likewise, we should not follow the U.S. lead in discriminating against foreign state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds. And if the United States and Mexico are wary of foreign workers and students, Canada should find ways to show that we are more open.

Canada is uniquely positioned to be the preferred North American partner for transpacific business. Geography has placed Canada's western ports closer to Asia by two sailing days. Demography has endowed our country with a vibrant community of transnational citizens who are as likely to call Vancouver or Toronto home as they are to reside in Shanghai, Mumbai or Seoul. But the collective Canadian psyche has yet to incorporate Asia into its mental map, which is the most important step in embracing an Asia-Pacific future.

Yuen Pao Woo is president and co-CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

” The question is not whether Canada should refocus its priorities toward Asia, as if the continent were a menu choice in an international smorgasbord. Rather, it's about how Canada should adjust to Asian countries' ineluctable global impact on everyday issues ranging from mortgage rates to air quality ... But the collective Canadian psyche has yet to incorporate Asia into its mental map ...”

That’s the issue.

Canadians have, for nearly 40 years, laboured under the quite juvenile illusion that we matter just because we’re here and ”nice." Nothing could be further from the truth. It was a stupid –that’s the only world – idea when Pierre Trudeau and Ivan Head crafted it in 1968/69; it was even more stupid policy when it was enunciated in 1970 in the infamous ”Foreign Policy for Canadians” white paper, and it remains stupid today. The only problem is that the idea is incredibly popular with Canadians – including many in the commentariat.

We must understand and adapt to he world as we find it.

For starters that means our foreign policy must always take as its first and dominant factor relations with the USA. Many, I daresay most Canadians, do not much like the USA and would like politicians to find a ”third way.” That, too, is stupid but we must understand that most politicians, including most prime ministers are venal power seekers, not leaders, so they will pander to the misconceptions of the ignorant masses rather than lead them in the right direction. It’s one of the attributes of a liberal democracy: the fearful, timorous, ill-informed voice of Joe Sixpack must count.

[Kirkhill]

Bringing Asian Awareness to Canada....

Is it appropriate to bring Islamic awareness to Canada by importing Saudi Imams to teach Islam to us?
Is it appropriate to put Jesuits into Public Schools to teach Catholic awareness?

Some swords have two very sharp edges.

As to the concept of a Global Steering Committee.....No thanks. I choose the people I meet and with whom I associate. I decide my own course.

[Zip]

As to the concept of a Global Steering Committee.....No thanks. I choose the people I meet and with whom I associate. I decide my own course.

Roger that...  "Master of my fate and Captain of my soul", so to speak.

[Greymatters]

Are there any more sections to this series, or was that the last of them?

[E.R. Campbell]

That was it; a three part series.

[E.R. Campbell]

The propensity of the ”chattering classes” to misinform Canadians could not be better illustrated than in this bit of rubbish by senior Globe and Mail commentator Michael Valpy (it is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080630.widentitytwo30/BNStory/National/home

The foreign policy myth

MICHAEL VALPY

From Monday's Globe and Mail
June 30, 2008 at 12:54 AM EDT

As Canada turns 141 years old tomorrow, few beliefs and values are held more strongly in common by Canadians than their thoughts of their country on the international stage.

They have been seduced by mythology. The reality of Canada's foreign policy – the country's official face to the world – for the most part is starkly different from the altruistic image of Canada with which its citizens are in love.

Yet it's a myth still with the power to drive Canadian non-governmental organizations: the Stephen Lewis Foundation working with HIV/AIDS victims in Africa; physician James Orbinski's Dignitas International working with communities in AIDS-overwhelmed areas; Maude Barlow's international public access-to-water project; retired Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire's global campaign against child soldiers, and many others.

They see themselves as torch-bearers of what their country should be about.

The Strategic Counsel poll that The Globe and Mail is publishing over the national holiday shows a people robustly distinct from their southern neighbours, viewing themselves as significantly more open toward the global Other.

An Environics poll in January revealed Canadians' conviction that their country stands out as a positive force in the world. Nearly two-thirds of respondents thought our global role had grown over the past 20 years, with peacekeeping and foreign aid being identified as our greatest contributions.

An even earlier Compas poll produced similar outcomes. “Our biggest finding,” Compas president Conrad Winn told the Ottawa Citizen, “was the powerful streak of democratic moralism that pervades almost all of Canadians' thinking about international affairs.”

Those beliefs mask reality and the crabby eye-rolling of foreign policy scholars infuriated by Canadians' persistence in holding onto a mythology that has lost authenticity: We really don't do peacekeeping any more (our combat mission in Afghanistan's civil war is something else); our foreign aid remains well below the 0.7 per cent of gross national product we committed ourselves to more than 25 years ago, and our world influence has become a pale, flaccid thing.

Mythology, or meaning-endowed narrative, is one of two ways of looking at the past. The other is the science of history, the scholarly interpretation of records, events and artifacts. Sometimes they're on the same track; often not.

What is testament to myth's power, however, is the tenacity of Canadians' belief in their country as moral peacemaker and good helper.

Where does it come from? British scholar George Steiner says every mythology begins with what he calls “a moment of crucial revelation.”

We know precisely in history when that began: when a brilliant group of a dozen or so young Canadians were recruited into the foreign service between the two world wars. Lester Pearson, future Nobel Peace Prize winner and prime minister, was among them.

A common thread runs through their backgrounds that has never been thoroughly analyzed: Almost all were the sons of pastors, priests, missionaries and deeply religious families. They were steeped in Protestant social gospel, that major intellectual force in Canadian political and social life of the early 20th century.

Social gospel gave them their moral idealism. Their moral idealism led them to create Canada's first real foreign policy, based on the “functional principle” that Canada's influence in the councils of the postwar world would be commensurate with its material contributions. Give a lot and get listened to.

They were outstanding leaders in the formation of the United Nations and the multiracial Commonwealth. They created the first real UN peacekeeping force, for which Mr. Pearson won the Nobel Prize, although his hope that it would become an exercise in peace-making never materialized.

Theirs was diplomacy by missionary impulse. And it began its decline in the 1960s as successive Canadian prime ministers lost interest (albeit with periodic arousals: John Diefenbaker pushed racist South Africa out of the Commonwealth; Pierre Trudeau went on a peace mission; Brian Mulroney admirably supported Africa's front-line states against the apartheid South African regime).

One of Canada's most brilliant diplomats, Allan Gotlieb, hardly a wild-eyed romantic about his craft, lamented in a private memorandum 40 years ago: “What makes the decline of this role particularly serious for Canada is that it played an important part in forging our unity in the post-war era. Like the Danes who made good furniture, the French who made good wine, the Russians who made sputnik, Canada, as a specially endowed middle power, as the reasonable man's country, as the broker or the skilled intermediary, made peace.”

What a catechism to teach to the young.

The missionary impulse had its last hurrah with Lloyd Axworthy, foreign minister from 1996 to 2000, who consulted with his United Church pastor on his initiatives on the International Criminal Court, the international gun trade, the doctrine of responsibility to protect and the treaty to ban land mines.

They were worthy endeavours, hamstrung by Mr. Axworthy's inability to elicit support from the big powers; hamstrung by our governments' willful neglect of the “functional principle's” equation that said our influence depended on the contributions we made.

Yet the mythology lives on, powerfully.

I have no problem with the first bit of Valpy’s comment. He’s right: Canadians are (self-imposed) captives of a myth. We are not peacekeepers and we never were. Valpy fails to mention that when we “did” peacekeeping it was a charter member of the anti-Soviet West – we ‘did’ peacekeeping to neutralize Soviet mischief in the world. We never did and do not now care about the poor and suffering of the world.

Where Valpy goes way off track is in his demonstration of how poorly informed Canadians, himself included, can be. There is no secret about the history of either the Canadian foreign service in its “golden era:” O.D. Skelton created it - in his own image, with many of his own virtues and many of his own flaws.

The origin of the “functional principle” is entirely political: it lies in the Grey Lecture. Louis St Laurent, in the 1947 Grey Lecture set out the five principles that would guide foreign policy, in principle and in action, for his ten years as foreign minister and prime minister and for the next ten years during which Mike Pearson and John Diefenbaker held power. They were:

1.   “Our external policies shall not destroy our unity.”

2.   “The conception of political liberty.” St Laurent went on to explain this: “...  we have come as a people to distrust and dislike governments which rule by force and which suppress free comment on their activities. We know that stability is lacking where consent is absent. We believe that the greatest safeguard against the aggressive policies of any government is the freely expressed judgment of its own people. This does not mean that we have ever sought to interfere in the affairs of others, or to meddle in situations which were obviously outside our interest or beyond our control. It does mean, however, that we have consistently sought and found our friends amongst those of like political traditions. It means equally that we have realized that a threat to the liberty of western Europe, where our political ideas were nurtured, was a threat to our own way of life. This realization has perhaps not been comprehended or expressed by every group and every individual in the country with as much clarity and coherence as, looking back on the events, we should like. I have no doubt, however, that for the young men of our universities who fought in this war, it was a part of our national inheritance which they well understood.”

3.   “Respect for the rule of law [which] has become an integral part of our external as of our domestic policy.”

4.   “Values which lay emphasis on the importance of the individual, on the place of moral principles in the conduct of human relations, on standards of judgment which transcend mere material well-being.” He previously described these: “... in our national life we are continually influenced by the conceptions of good and evil which emerged from Hebrew and Greek civilization and which have been transformed and transmitted through the Christian traditions of the Western World.”

5.   A “willingness to accept international responsibilities.” St Laurent described this: “...there are many in this country who feel that in the past we have played too small a part in the development of international political organizations. The growth in this country of a sense of political responsibility on an international scale has perhaps been less rapid than some of us would like. It has nevertheless been a perceptible growth: and again and again on the major questions of participation in international organization, both in peace and war, we have taken our decision to be present. If there is one conclusion that our common experience has led us to accept, it is that security for this country lies in the development of a firm structure of international organization.”

Point 5 is the very essence of the “functional principle’ Valpy (rightly) admires but it owes little to Skelton or Pearson and much to Louis St Laurent and Vincent Massey (a deeply conservative anti-Semite who is the exact opposite of the sturdy sons of small-town protestant clergymen Valpy mythologizes. Hume Wrong, the very best of the lot, was also not of Valpy’s mythological stock). Here is how St Laurent described the functional principle in action:

... we have been ready to take our part in constructive international action. We have, of course, been forced to keep in mind the limitations upon the influence of any secondary power. No society of nations can prosper if it does not have the support of those who hold the major share of the world's military and economic power. There is little point in a country of our stature recommending international action, if those who must carry the major burden of whatever action is taken are not in sympathy. We know, however, that the development of international organizations on a broad scale is of the very greatest importance to us, and we have been willing to play our role when it was apparent that significant and effective action was contemplated.

That (1947-67) was the first (and, sadly, the last) time we had a distinctively Canadian foreign policy. That what Valpy mourns, even as he fails, miserably, to understand its origins and principles.

[GAP]

I like your summary, and agree with most of it, but the whole tone of the article is essentially whining........"Bring Back the Liberals!!"

[North Star]

Yes, this column was all about whining and little substance. Canada is about peace, order, and good government, individual liberty balanced with collective responsibilities, and respecting diversity. Breaking from the Trudeau/Chretien years of flattering despots and staying silent in the face of bigotry is quite refreshing.

"Calling out China for human rights violations? That's not nuanced! Eeek!"

[E.R. Campbell]

And, also related to this issue and the 14 Oct election thread, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post web site, is a prescient comment:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/25/neil-hrab-conservative-war-room-sees-no-benefit-in-harper-addressing-un.aspx

Neil Hrab: Conservative war room sees no benefit in Harper addressing UN

Posted: September 25, 2008, 12:47 PM by Kelly McParland

 Barring some last-minute change of plan, it seems likely that neither the PM nor Foreign Minister David Emerson will be in New York this week to attend the opening of the UN General Assembly in New York. That means an unelected public servant, rather than an elected official, will read Canada's annual speech at the Assembly's opening. Predictably, the opposition parties and a chorus of retired diplomats are declaring the absence of elected Canadian government officials at the UN to be a gross snub to the world community.

While opposition leaders may want to portray the Tories' UN no-show as an affront to the rest of the world, there are some politically strategic reasons for the government not to have an elected official deliver the speech this year -- if you put yourself in the shoes of the people in the Tory war room.
 

One reason is that in the currently highly-charged atmosphere of a national campaign, sending a minister or the Prime Minister to read the General Assembly speech would make that document into a pinata for the opposition parties to endlessly bash. That's because it is impossible to write the General Assembly speech in such a way as to cut off all avenues of opposition attack. If the speech focuses on Canada's determination to help advance the peace process in, say, Darfur, then the opposition will claim the government has turned its back on the struggle to bring democracy to Burma, for example -- or that Stephan Harper has forgotten Canada's obligation to end the civil war in Sri Lanka.
 

If the centrepiece of the speech was a plea for the world to do more to help the Canadian-backed UN mission in Haiti,  the opposition might say the government has abandoned the people of Africa.
 

And if the speech were to reinforce the standard Conservative foreign policy messaging that under Stephen Harper's leadership, Canada has been rebuilding its global reputation after years of inaction and neglect under the previous government,  then the opposition would claim the Tories have hijacked the UN speech for partisan purposes. I could go on, but I think the point is clear: it's hard to imagine a scenario during a hyper-partisan election campaign, like the current one, where the government would not find itself on the defensive in the hours (and possibly days) following the speech.
 

Like a Throne Speech, budget speech or economic update, it's easy for the opposition to find holes in the General Assembly speech and go on the offensive. If a non-partisan public servant delivers the General Assembly speech instead of an elected official, then the opposition will have to hold back criticism of the government's foreign policy priorities for another day.
 

That brings up another shrewd reason to have a bureaucrat deliver what will likely be a bland, non-controversial speech at the General Assembly. Foreign policy hasn't played much of a role so far in this campaign. By sending a bureaucrat to New York to read the General Assembly speech, the Conservatives have maintained their freedom of action -- that is, they can unveil their foreign policy proposals at a time and place of their choosing, and in a way that (they hope) will force the opposition parties on the defensive.
 

If prior history is any guide, the Conservative war room will likely send the PM to some desolate point in the Arctic to make a foreign policy-related statement, one where he promises to continue to stand up for Canada's Arctic claims against, for example, Vladimir Putin's Russia. It would be hard for the opposition leaders to muster anything other than a muted "me, too" in response to a statement like that.
 

National Post

neil.hrab@gmail.com
 
Neil Hrab is a former National Post editorial writer, who has also served as a communications advisor to Conservative ministers in the federal government.

 
So, foreign policy only makes it into the election campaign by the back door. It is good, smart political tactics, I guess, to presume that Canadians don't want to discuss policy - just well targeted freebies.

[E.R. Campbell]

I’m reopening this thread because, in foreign policy terms, the US, and our relations with it is all important. We must understand, or, a least, consider, how we each see the world.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is an interesting column by Lawrence Martin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.wcomartin20/BNStory/specialComment/home

Waiting for the Obama way in Canada? Not so fast

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Monday's Globe and Mail
October 20, 2008 at 6:00 AM EDT

NEW YORK — In the United States, the movement is away from the era of conservatism. In Canada, such an era might just be gathering momentum.

Free-market economics is falling into disrepute south of the border, its tenets of deregulation and the like being seen as a cause of the current financial meltdown. The U.S. government, growing larger all the time, moves into the breach with bailouts and mass stimulus packages. With all the comparisons to the Depression in the air, Keynesianism is on the way back.

Politically, Republicans appear to be on the verge of a major repudiation. Progressives are ready to claim the White House and make sizable gains in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Foreign policy conservatism is discredited as a result of the Bush years. There is a greater push for diplomacy and negotiation, an America that reaches out. Barack Obama is less inclined to believe that improvement comes through conflict.

Canada, meanwhile, has just given a Conservative government a wider mandate. Its prime minister is still a believer in smaller government and the unloading of federal powers to the provinces. Without anything approaching the economic problems Americans face, there's no rush to new forms of government engineering of the economy. Stephen Harper was criticized in the election campaign for not having a plan, for a steady-as-she-goes approach. It didn't appear to bother the voters.

His foreign policy approach is tied to old alliances. There is little Obama-type talk of a new internationalism, of negotiating with enemies, of opening big doors to new powers such as China.

The Canadian centre of gravity moves more and more to the conservative West, where the resource riches lie, where the population is rising, where the culture is more predominately on the right. The Canadian media have become increasingly conservative, with no sign of a reversal.

In terms of the population makeup, progressives still form the dominant mass in Canada. The centre-left Liberals, the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc Québécois took almost two-thirds of the vote in Tuesday's election. But despite having a majority in this respect, it does not extend to the levers of power.

The trend toward conservatism in Canada and liberalism in the U.S. is a rare occurrence. Through much of our bilateral history, the opposite has been the case. We've had Liberal governments about two-thirds of the time over the past century, and our occasional Conservative governments have leaned toward moderation. So the usual tendency has been for this country to trend left while Washington steered the other way.

The likely arrival of the Obama Democrats, therefore, brings us into largely uncharted territory.

For a period when we had somewhat similar circumstances, you have to go back all the way to the early 1930s when Franklin Roosevelt took office in the midst of the Great Depression and brought in his New Deal. R.B. Bennett, the prime minister, had spent the previous couple of years trying to dissociate himself from Herbert Hoover, a conservative president about as unpopular then as George W. Bush is now.

By the time FDR took office, Canada, in contrast to the circumstances today, was facing a similar economic crisis. Mr. Bennett tried to rush into the embrace of the popular U.S. president, calling him a man of “wide vision, unselfish purpose, steady courage and sincerity, rare patience and determination.” He also tried to move toward FDR's policy proclivities, bringing in a mini-New Deal of his own. But it was seen as too little too late to counter his own Depression. Canadians brought back Mackenzie King, and the Liberals went on a 22-year uninterrupted run of power.

If today's financial crisis is as serious as many believe and if it spills over heavily into this country, we could see a serious impact on our political culture. The rightward shift in Canada could be interrupted. The Obama way could become our way.

But the conservative grip is stronger on our culture today than it ever was back then, or perhaps at any other time. We are a far cry from any Great Depression. A progressive resurgence to match America's is an unlikely eventuality.

Martin is, normally, a smart fellow where Canadian politics is concerned but he has an ‘American blind spot.’ His hatred for George W Bush – and for anyone who doesn’t hate Bush equally – is visceral. He fails to see that Canada, including most of the Conservative Party, is, broadly, Democrat. There are few Republicans left in Canada – the religious right has, largely, abandoned the Conservative Party and joined a few fringes. Our NDP represents a large Canadian fringe who are a bit too ‘left’ to be in the Democrat mainstream.

We are, in fact, almost in lockstep with the Americans. We were out of step for the past eight years, but Jean Chrétien ran one of the most conservative governments in decades – he was more fiscally conservative than Brian Mulroney – but he was in almost perfect unison with Bill Clinton.

Conservative ≠ Republican; NDP ≠ Democrat; Conservative ≈ Democrat; Liberal ≈ Democrat; that’s us vs. them.

But, I do agree that Obama = “uncharted waters” even as I expect that he cannot force America to lurch left – or anywhere else it doesn’t really want to go.

 

[GAP]

I suspect Obama will be the US equivalent of our Trudeau....he will start some social programs that once started the population will find hard to divest themselves of, but he is mildly socialist (based on his rhetoric). Whether he governs that way or not remains to be seen, because his veto's can be overridden, he has to pay attention to his own house and senate. They may be democrats (mostly), but they don't want their pork spoiled....

[E.R. Campbell]

Given the state of the economy and the size of the current US deficit, I doubt that Americans will ask for much, and I anticipate they will scream bloody murder if they are offered too much. It will be hard to sell bonds and T-bills to finance much new spending - even defence spending.