October 22, 2013
There has been a lot of noise about a new realism in Canadian foreign policy—principled, not going along just to get along—and it seems a great deal of rushing around the globe by the energetic Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird. But what do we have to show for all of this? There has been a flurry of comment in the last few weeks about Mr Harper not addressing the United Nations General Assembly fall session, unlike many other heads of state and heads of government. How indicative of his government’s approach to foreign affairs is this lack of involvement?
There has been no shortage of international events and issues over the last several years to engage the interest of the Harper government. But it has been a continual challenge for our international partners to know what Canada’s overall foreign policy aims are.
We took part in a jolly little war in Libya to get rid of Gadhafi, who everyone agreed was a nasty piece of work but who had been tolerated, and in fact courted because he had big bucks (remember SNC/Lavalin?). The result of that adventure, however, is a failing state and well-armed jihadists roaming about the Sahel. But Libya is celebrated as a Harper government triumph, and it has been onward and upward from there.
Except when it comes to Syria, and its nasty leader Bashar al-Assad. Aside from unnecessarily irritating the Russians (remember who chairs the G8 this year, and wait until we need something from them) by criticising their position without offering any suggestions, Harper’s foreign minister has urged everyone else to do the needful and that’s all. The government touts Canada’s contribution to the international humanitarian effort to assist Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons, but what of the imperative to find a resolution to the civil war that has created the humanitarian crisis?
Stepping back a bit, what else has Canada been doing to advance global peace, stability, security and prosperity in the last five years? We have a number of new trade arrangements—with the European Union (details to follow…) and countries such as Panama and Colombia and Peru—which probably will be good for business. We blew it in terms of getting elected to the United Nations Security Council, but so what? It’s only a collection of dictators, despots and crooks. We bailed from the Kyoto Accord on Climate Change, and the UN Desertification Convention—Canada doesn’t have deserts, so who cares? We now have an Office of Religious Freedom but we are virtually invisible in key international discussions on human rights, although from time to time ministers make speeches denouncing forced and early marriage, a new issue that has for some reason suddenly entered the picture. What about the sexual and reproductive rights of women? The human rights provisions of the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, passed unanimously by Parliament during the early years of Conservative rule, are being disregarded. And let’s not get started on the grossly unbalanced stance Canada has taken with regard to Israel-Palestine relations, while still expecting to play a useful role in future negotiations.
Another example is the Prime Minister’s announcement that he would not attend the Commonwealth meeting in Sri Lanka because of that country’s human rights record. It will be difficult for Canada to influence human rights behaviour by shouting from the sidelines once again. More troubling is Harper’s instruction that Canadian support for the Commonwealth be reviewed, which implies that our contribution will be cut, or that Canada might even withdraw from the organisation.
After joining 152 other nations in supporting the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, Canada has balked at signing. Something to do with Canadian gun owners. At least we didn’t join North Korea, Syria and Iran in voting against it. As well, under the Conservatives, Canada’s participation in UN peacekeeping missions has fallen to the point where at present only 50-odd Canadians are serving with the 83,000 UN peacekeeping forces. The absence of our skilled and knowledgeable personnel is noticed and regretted.
When it comes to development assistance, this is the government that cut the aid budget by 20% in 2012-13 and closed down Canada’s free-standing international cooperation agency, CIDA. The Harper government has promoted Canadian mining companies in developing countries while defeating a private member’s bill that would have held them accountable for their actions abroad. The government regularly refers to its 2010 Muskoka Mother and Child Health Initiative, but has provided no evidence-based reports on what it has achieved.
The Harper government shut down aid to many of the poorest African countries, and now it’s the turn of Haiti, the poorest and most vulnerable country in the Western Hemisphere. Claiming that Canadians were not satisfied with the results of CIDA’s projects in Haiti, in 2012 the Harper government’s then international cooperation Minister Julian Fantino halted all new bilateral assistance to the country. This has been accompanied by lectures about the need for Haitians to address political issues, while ignoring how Canada’s use of non-Haitian delivery channels effectively disempowers the government and Haitians themselves. Haiti is still struggling to recover from the devastating January 2010 earthquake and tens of thousands of Haitians still live in temporary housing without adequate water and sanitation. This is how Canada treats its largest recipient of bilateral assistance.
What Canada now seems to have by way of a foreign policy ignores poverty, inequality and vulnerability. The Harper government scorns multilateralism and looks at most of Canada’s foreign relations and interests through the lens of short-term economic benefit. All of this has put Canada on the sidelines with respect to any issue of international significance. Where we were once listened to and sought out for helpful suggestions, innovative thinking and inclusive organisational skills, we are now ignored because of our rigid, selfish and short term approaches. Not a very useful legacy for a country where good international relationships, to say nothing of a stable global environment, are essential to long-term prosperity and security.