Story Tools: PRINT | Text Size: S M L XL | REPORT TYPO | SEND YOUR FEEDBACK

Blog

Mideast Dispatches

Where's the debate on Canada's foreign policy?

Comments (9)

Monday, October 20, 2008 | 01:05 PM ET

By Nahlah Ayed

There goes another election and, with it, another opportunity to have a national discussion about Canada's role on the world stage.

There's no question there were larger priorities for Canadians in this campaign: The uncertainty over the economy big-footed even the traditionally pressing matter of the state of health care.

And it's true, foreign policy has rarely dominated a Canadian election. Political studies professor Kim Richard Nossal of Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., says it happened only four times: in 1911 when free trade and naval expenditures were an issue; 1917 when debate raged on conscription; 1963, when defence policy dominated the campaign; and 1988, when free trade was the defining issue.

Yet despite Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, there was little room in the election campaign this time around for a substantive discussion on international affairs, even where Afghanistan was concerned.

More than ever, it seems foreign policy as a whole has been relegated to the margins of discussion on Canada's future, reduced to one of two things — trade or aid. It's low on the list of the country's priorities, even now, when it seems to matter everywhere from the Middle East to Russia and China.

"It's a problem that's gotten worse over time," says Christopher Waddell, a journalism professor and political analyst at Carleton University in Ottawa.

"The rest of the world thinks we're irrelevant," he adds. "We're not deemed to be much of a player anywhere … the rest of the world doesn't even bother to consult us on anything."

All quiet on Afghanistan

Naturally, Afghanistan is at the top of the foreign agenda. But listening to the party leaders these past five weeks, you could conclude that all Canadians agreed on the merits of the mission, its nature, and its timeline. You might have even walked away thinking the mission was also already over.

"In this campaign, no party has an interest in raising the key issue — Afghanistan," Nossal wrote me in the days leading up to the vote. "So everyone keeps quiet, hoping that everyone will keep quiet. So far, they're all cooperating with each other."

Part of the reason is that the Conservatives and Liberals struck a deal this spring that would end the existing mission and bring Canadian soldiers home from Afghanistan in 2011. It was a deal that effectively neutralized Afghanistan as a potent and defining election issue.

So the discussion has been described at muted, and limited in scope. This, despite opinion polls that suggest the majority of Canadians oppose that deal made in Parliament.

And despite the looming reality that the U.S., in coming months, is expected to step up its war in Afghanistan, where Canadian troops stand directly in the line of fire. Yet there was little debate on what role Canadian troops will play in what could become an even deadlier war zone.

Nor was there much discussion about the stepped-up U.S. campaign of unilateral strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan. Might Canadian troops play a bigger role in such attacks, despite serious objections from Pakistan's fragile new government, whose fall could have dire consequences for everyone involved?

What about the military's future international role? Some of the parties, including the Conservatives, promised to boost Canadian Forces' capabilities, but revealed little about their intended role in a post-Bush world. Would Canadian troops soldier on into the next U.S.-led round of the war on terror? Would they sit it out?

After a five-week campaign, we do not really know the answers.

Many slogans, few positions

I delved into the various parties' platforms looking for acknowledgement of the sad state of affairs in our international presence, any hint of a vision for Canada's place in the world.

I suppose that implicit in some of the material was a kind of confession that things are not quite right – like "restoring our voice in the world," or, addressing Canada's "diplomacy deficit."

But I found little in the main election documents to substantiate platform promises to lift Canada by the bootstraps and turn it into an international heavyweight. Many of them failed to take foreign policy objectives much beyond the non-controversial — and safe — areas of trade and development assistance.

They are indeed worthy objectives, like promising to increase or maintain Canada's longstanding support for Africa, international efforts to alleviate poverty, the global fight against the scourge of HIV/AIDS, combating the effects of climate change globally, and efforts to stop the atrocities in Darfur. Promoting human rights and democracy abroad were also popular, though details were scarce.

But the platforms only skimmed substantive foreign policy positions, if they mentioned any at all. For example, only two foresaw a renewed role for Canada in supporting peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians (the New Democrats and the Green Party). There were only passing mentions of China, Europe or Latin America, and mostly in the context of trade.

Few ventured into dangerous territory, either in their platforms or in the televised debates. Because Canadians tend to focus on local matters during elections, the candidates knew they didn't need to.

"Even if a [candidate] wanted to, [he/she] understands that it's not a political winner," Barry Kay, a political studies professor at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., said in a telephone interview. "It becomes a matter of practical politics."

What the future holds

The new government will face a complex set of international challenges, not least negotiating a new relationship with the U.S. once a new administration is elected next month and takes over in January.

And it will somewhat harder if Democrat Barack Obama wins, given that the Conservatives will form Canada's next government. History has often demonstrated that our relations with our neighbours to the south tend to be smoother when like-minded parties are in power on both sides of the border.

Among other things, Canada will need to be an active participant in suggested reforms of the UN and the G8, especially in light of the ongoing financial turmoil, and make its voice heard on proposed expansion of NATO to include countries formerly part of the Soviet Union.

Speaking of which, there's also the matter of how in the long-term Canada will approach a newly emboldened Russia, and its alliance with Cuba or Venezuela. Those are just some examples.

Of course, it may be tempting to simply follow the lead of others on these and other issues, as analysts say Canada has already largely been doing.

"We've been coasting for decades on the nostalgia of Lester B. Pearson," Kay said. "We've become freeloaders on foreign policy."

That cannot be good for Canada, nor for Canadians. No one can pretend that what happens beyond Canada's borders is irrelevant to what happens at home — the proof lies in places as far away as China, Pakistan, Georgia and Lebanon as well as the U.S. and Afghanistan. Foreign policy must be carefully considered, to ensure that it is in the country's unique interests — and responsive to the wishes of its citizens.

But given that Canadian governments seem to have given up on the idea of consulting the public directly on foreign policy matters, Canadians were denied a rare opportunity during the election to be engaged in the process of defining how to manage Canada's foreign portfolio. They simply weren't asked.

"There hasn't been a good debate in this country about the role we should be playing in the world and how to do it," Waddell said.

"No one has wanted to do that in an election, but we will see what happens afterwards."

One can only hope.

« Previous Post | Main

This discussion is now Open. Submit your Comment.

Comments (9)

RAnton

I want to start off by saying this was a well written piece.

I just want to comment on Tim Thiessen's point about "Foreign policy is increasingly about the military’s role". Although the synonymous portrayal of defence/foreign policy has recently gathered a lot of time in the news, I don't think Canadians, for the most part, discern the difference. The military is a tool of the Canadian Government (and Canadian people). It can be used to support Canadian foreign policy in the same way that diplomacy, aid, and economic support can be used. The danger to public perception comes when they equate defence policy with foreign policy. I believe the recent election saw politicians shying away from foreign policy issues because they percieved the public was blurring these issues. This should serve as a clarion call to Canada's Foreign Service. The great work these public servants do should be recognized and be distinguished as different from that of Canada's military. Both institutions have their own respective roles and, when used properly, be very effective in advancing Canadian goals. We have seen the disasterous results of when a military takes on the role of foreign policy enforcer with our southern neighbour. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

Posted October 30, 2008 12:31 PM

Vlad

Foreign policy?
This election run on NO POLICY WHATSOEVER, esp. when it comes to cons.

Posted October 22, 2008 02:02 PM

Toronto

Ken Lawson's racist comment highlights a lot about Canada's problem on the world stage.

First of all, if we were to stop trading with China, we would lose out on a lucrative market which has grown over 10%/a for more than a decade. With the US in recession, we need MORE trade with booming economies, not less. Stephen Harper did nothing for our trade relations when he dissed China by not attending the Olympics for ideological reasons.

Cutting off ties to China hurts Canada more than it does China. All of our eggs are in one basket (3/4 of our trade is with the US), don't you think that Canada's economy would be stronger if we had more trading partners?

Secondly, immigrants (whether Chinese or otherwise) have been the only thing saving us from a negative population growth. Its these immigrants who are buying homes and working those minimum wage jobs that you don't want to do! We have benefited so much from immigration (ie increased labour pool, foreign trained researchers, etc) and Mr. Navel Grazer Lawson wants to wants to pull the blinders in further.

Until Xenophobes like Mr. Lawson pick up and book and find out about how Canada's place in the world is affected by other countries and vice versa, the entire debate on foreign policy is moot.

This is why our politicians won't discuss foreign policy. They know that voters like Mr. Lawson just won't get it.

Posted October 22, 2008 10:09 AM

Tim Thiessen

Great piece, Nallah. As a Canadian who is involved directly in international development without public funding, I think the lack of discussion in this area is one of the larger illustrations that we suffer from a deficit of vision in Canada. It seems these days that the best articulation of vision in Canada is “Lower taxes and effective health care” – hardly a vision to pull the masses to the polls. If leadership is the question, the lack of vision in Canada damns our leaders across the board.
Lester Pearson’s legacy of vision served our country for decades, until we gave up. Chretien’s and Martin’s talk about Africa has proven to be a bust, because we have not increased our aid to least developed nations through the Millennium Development Goals, arguably one of the best international foreign policy efforts of all time.
Foreign policy is increasingly about the military’s role, and the Conservatives are the first party to remove international aid expenditures from public review. The figures just aren’t available. My own attempts to ask about foreign policy and aid have been met with repeated silence, from my own MP (Stephen Fletcher) to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Development, all the way to the Prime Minister’s office. The best response I have received to date is a brief acknowledgment from Fletcher’s office, and a promise to respond “as early as possible”. That came on July 31, months after my first attempt in April.
Canada has much to offer the world, from international conflict resolution to global disarmament and non-proliferation to ethical governance and democracy, as well as relief and development, not to mention joining the exclusive club of nations who live up to their international commitments to Kyoto and the Millennium Development Goals.

Posted October 22, 2008 09:38 AM

Ken Lawson

The only Policy Canada needs is no Trading with China and that goes for Immigration also!

Posted October 22, 2008 12:35 AM

Zitbum

Yukon

Nice article Nahlah, and I tend to agree with your points. We Canadians do not seem to have a strong collective impetus at directly "changing the world", but are perhaps better suited to be an icon for effective federal political systems, tolerance, and decent civil society.

I have to disagree with the use of your statement:

"History has often demonstrated that our relations with our neighbours to the south tend to be smoother when like-minded parties are in power on both sides of the border."

This leads to a false conception really seems to find a niche in the CBC forums.

Our Canadian Conservatism in 2008 is far, far different than American Republican Conservatism, and I think that anyone objective would liken it more with the Democratic party.

I see no reason why Prime Minister Harper would not get along with a President Obama: For a really uncomfortable pairing, watch how distant Harper must be in the presence of George Bush to not appear to have the "close" relationship" with an American that is political hemlock for any Canadian leader.

I predict a very warm relationship between Harper and Obama, who we are all hoping will be the next President. Our interests-peace, prosperity and the spreading of rational thinking- are ultimately the same, and these two leaders have distanced themselves, at least on a personal level, from dirty partisan politics.

Hopefully my optimism is another Candian value that can be spread by quiet example.

Posted October 21, 2008 05:21 PM

CassAndras

Ladysmith

I would go even further than BlueQuill by saying politicians are DECEIVING Canadians when Parties campaign ONLY on pocketbook matters rather than foreign policy issues. Canadians seem to forget our country has been sandwiched between the worst of neighbours for over sixty years, neighbours foolishly clinging to their inept doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

It suits politicians to say that nuclear weapons can't be uninvented - it is their way of NOT SAYING there is a practical way to put the genie of international conflict back in the bottle. Children around the globe should invite Canadian political leaders to a grade k-3 exercise in "compare and contrast" to illustate the point: Mr.Bush and Mr. Putin need only agree to positioning a few of their nuclear deterrents in the capitals of each other to achieve their respective national security goals, creating mutual respect for each other rather than mutual paranoia. The "future generations" our politicians profess to care about would also grasp that such a principle of reciprocity would serve as a constructive model for other nations to follow.

Statesmanship and diplomacy should begin at home as Canadians near November 11th to honour the commitment to "never again".

Posted October 21, 2008 02:37 PM

Dan Lacelle

Maybe its because we've finally come to the realization that were too small to really make a difference in this ugly little world, and that maybe we've had enough of trying to help when it doesn't seem that its appreciated or wanted or that maybe we're actually making matters worse. Whether its the Israeli Palestinian issue, Somalia, Rawanda, the Balkans, Afghanistan or where ever, our brave but pitifully small Armed Forces and our Foreign Affairs people always seem to be in over their heads, maybe its time to pull back and sit on the sidelines for awhile and look after ourselves and our country and borders. And maybe even have a national discussion on when and if we should get invovled anywhere anytime soon, because it seems to me that we've been played for suckers the last few times we've got involved in the worlds trouble spots, and quite frankly I don't think it matters much whether we're invovled or not.

Posted October 21, 2008 01:36 PM

BlueQuill

Why are foreign policy issues not on the national agenda?
Largely for the same reasons that the environment is not on the national agenda. Global and environmental stewardship is seen as an expense, a sacrifice, without promise of reward.

Politicians have nothing to gain. Foreign policy is full of landmines.
The Israel-Palestine issue is a hot-potato. For politicians, it's a no-win situation. Any decisive statement or action on the issue would alienate one side or the other and accomplish nothing.

Canadians care about their pocket books. We care about wide-screen TVs. We do not care about foreign policy. We do not care about people who live far away. We have neither the time nor the inclination to worry about other people's problems.
Most of us are scarcely functioning citizens of our own country. We are not global citizens.

Canada has turned inwards. Our cherished myths notwithstanding, we are now a country of ignorant isolationists and navel-gazers.

Posted October 21, 2008 11:54 AM

« Previous Post | Main