Harper charts a course for Canada; While he has many foreign policy critics, the prime minister has found his point on Canada’s diplomatic compass, writes Colin Robertson
Argue with the taxonomy, but there are essentially three schools in Canadian foreign policy. The first is that designed by Sir John A Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier: the realist, power-and-interest school that actively participates in an alliance of the like-minded, initially led by Britain and now the United States. The external counterpart to Macdonald’s National Policy, it was followed through to Brian Mulroney, with adjustments for changing circumstances. Mulroney, moreover, was able to do in 1988 what Laurier failed to do in 1911 – exchange tariff protection for free trade.
The second is that of Mackenzie King: nationalist, regional in outlook, and both cautious and skeptical about international entanglements that aren’t reciprocal. This approach also appealed to populist, regional third parties from the Progressives through the Bloc Québécois.
Louis St. Laurent and Mike Pearson personified the third school, further refined by Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. Like the first school, it is committed to collective security. Assertively multilateral, it embraces international law and institutions, especially the UN. Energetically nationalist, it is ready to tweak the beak of the American eagle to underline Canadian independence.
Pundits and respected former practitioners have criticized Stephen Harper‘s foreign policy as polarizing, lacking in strategic coherence and having put us out of the international game. To determine where to situate Stephen Harper‘s “enlightened sovereignty,” let’s look at some of its main compass points.
Harper has taken Mulroney’s advice – which he reiterated in a speech at the University of Toronto on Thursday – on handling the United States, our most important relationship, especially his dictum “that we can disagree without being disagreeable” and that we always achieve more when we start with what is on their agenda. Harper also understands Mulroney’s corollary that Canadian influence in the world is measured to a significant degree by the extent to which we are perceived as having real influence in Washington. Harper is betting that the Obama administration can deliver on his initiatives to secure better access by pushing the perimeter beyond our borders and through regulatory reform.
Like its predecessors, the Harper government is also actively pursuing opportunities with other partners. Since 2006 it has concluded free-trade agreements with nine countries, including Honduras, Colombia, Peru and Panama and opened the door to closer partnership with Brazil. We are a nation of the Americas and they deserve more attention, beginning with Mexico, our mostlyignored, other NAFTA partner.
Negotiations on expanded trade are underway with close to 50 others, importantly with the European Union, Korea and India. All are incrementally important, especially with the Doha Round of international trade talks on life support. Priority should be placed on gaining a seat within the Trans Pacific Partnership, with its entrée into Asia Pacific.
China was initially, unnecessarily, cold-shouldered. Harper now appreciates that the approach of Trudeau, Mulroney and Chrétien – constant engagement with respect for “face.” With the relationship back on track, a second Harper trip in November should emphasize our people-to-people connections through schooling and migration, as well as our commercial objectives.
Fifty years and a trillion dollars later there is an acknowledgment that the “handout” approach to development isn’t working, especially in the case of Africa. A lead role for business in providing a “hand-up” as a job-generator makes more sense. In arguing for greater “aid effectiveness” Stephen Harper echoes a theme that dates back to Mike Pearson. As co-chair of the UN Commission following up on his G8 Muskoka Initiative on Maternal and Child Health, Harper’s first report provides a new framework for accountability and transparency.
Since the creation of the Jewish homeland, we have consistently, and correctly, stood in Israel’s corner. The Harper government, with support from the Liberals, has sharpened our stand by walking out or boycotting forums that link Zionism and racism.
Wearing the blue beret has considerable romantic appeal but Canadians haven’t led in peacekeeping for a couple of decades. Contemporary circumstances make it unlikely we’ll do so again soon. What is required is a capacity for peacemaking and disaster response. Our experience in Afghanistan has given us the “best little army” in the world with skills that proved adaptable and effective in the relief of Haiti.
The bigger policy question for Canadians, underlined in the Libyan intervention – “responsibility to protect” in all but name – is how far, and how much, should we commit to duties beyond our border that actively involve us in other people’s conflicts with significant risk to the lives of Canadians. As we have learned in Afghanistan and Iraq and are witnessing in the fallout from the Arab Spring, liberal democracy is not an easy transplant.
Few prime ministers have devoted as much attention to northern policy as Harper. A majority of Canadians see Arctic sovereignty as the country’s top foreign-policy priority. He needs to move ahead with the promised icebreakers, actively lead in the Arctic Council stewardship negotiations and remember that we need new frigates to patrol what is now the longest coastline in the world.
The comical Fossil of the Year award notwithstanding, the Harper approach on climate change reflects both Canadian ambivalence on energy and the environment and the complexity of regionalism. When given a choice in the 2008 election, Canadians rejected the Stéphane Dion “green-shift.” Nor has the Green party enjoyed anywhere near the success of its European counterparts. Taxing carbon may be good public policy but, like ending sales of asbestos, abandoning supply marketing, and permitting foreign investment in our resources, governments weigh these decisions against their calculus of national unity.
For more article, click here