by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC,
FEC, CET, P. Eng.
Former Member of Parliament
Pickering-Scarborough East
In recent decades, Canada has generally been content to view its foreign policy aligned with the foreign policy of the United States. It is obvious that in the last decades Canada has abandoned a tradition in foreign affairs that formerly allowed Canada to be noticed on the world scene. Year after year, Canada's involvement in international organizations it helped create has decayed in a manner that has turned Canada into a forgotten entity on today's global stage.
During my service as an MP, when I participated in many foreign parliamentary missions, I noted with sadness, the diminished diplomatic presence of Canada in many important places in the world. I especially noticed such a lack of presence in Strasbourg, where many important international organizations make their home. Let us face it; practicing diplomacy from a distance is no way to build international relationships.
In today's complicated world, where events transpire daily, that can lead to major world difficulties, Canada is missing in action.
Previous generations of Canadian politicians and foreign affairs public service employees had a sense of their country's foreign policy often framed proudly through the lens of Canada's "role in the world". For them, foreign policy meant making an important contribution to the world, and a pride of national identity.
For much of the Cold War, as a leading member of one of just two international power blocs, Canada could carve out a role as an "honest broker" and defender of multilateralism amidst a superpower standoff.
In the unipolar era that followed the cold war, the world seemed ripe for Canadian engagement based on true liberal values.
The period of unrivalled American power allowed for the expansion of a Western-backed "liberal international order" which went beyond mere rules-based cooperation between states. It aspired to a global transformation rooted in a newly defined "liberal democracy" and "market interests" based diplomacy.
Emerging challenges to this "only power" from China, and the latest flexing of military muscles by Russia, have created a new reality where Canada seems to be lost. No initiatives, no ideas and no action; in essence, no Lester Pearsons.
The rise of these rival powers, combined with Western missteps such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the Great Recession of 2008, have rendered the vision of a global order based on new liberal values and a Western hegemony, increasingly implausible.
While the "liberal international order" may have declined over recent years, Canada's relative influence in global affairs has waned even more markedly.
The terms of today's international order are no longer static, they are dynamic. The new global context calls for a Canadian foreign policy that is active and not reactive. It is not enough to be comfortable speaking the language of just values, supportive action is required. You have to put your money where your mouth is.
Canada's shrunken global profile due in part to free-loading and partly to neglect, is in serious need of new energy and vision. The country's last foreign policy review was undertaken nearly two decades ago.
With the world no longer divided into capitalist and communist blocs, Canada now finds itself positioned in a terrain of global scope in which the West's share of global GDP is in relative decline.
Geographic isolation, combined with a reactive, rather than proactive approach to foreign policy, have resulted in Canada's back-burner position in both European and Asian security dynamics. Where much of the future of global order will be played out these two theatres.
The failure to craft a global liberal order coinciding with the advent of multipolarity suggests that we now inhabit, at least in certain respects, a post-liberal order. In such an order, a Canadian foreign policy rooted in values-centric megaphone diplomacy is a recipe for isolation rather than influence.
In an international order where liberalism no longer holds a monopoly on conceptions of modernity or universality, albeit one still undergoing a transition whose endpoint remains uncertain, the task for the next generation of Canadian foreign policy thinkers will be twofold. First, can Canada genuinely learn to think about its international engagement in terms of interests rather than only values? And second, can it come to a consensus on a unified list of objectives that represent national interests to present beyond its borders?
Highlighting the need to preserve the "rules-based international order" glosses over the crucial and more fundamental question of what truly remains a core national interest in a world where the rules are already being litigated among the great powers.
Given Canada's reduced international stature, the aforementioned questions may tilt toward encouraging acceptance of a foreign policy of reduced - albeit more targeted - scope.
Canadians could embrace the notion of having a smaller global footprint. A strategy focused on securing core national interests could be easier to sell than some vague and grandiose idea that "the world needs more Canada".
As an example, and let's ignore the recent, difficult conflagration in Europe, an active presence of Canada in the Indo-Pacific region would be beneficial in re-establishing Canada's traditions in foreign affairs.
Many countries in the Indo-Pacific region have refused to pick sides in the deepening US-China rivalry. While they may view Beijing's rise with a degree of apprehension, and therefore welcome a greater Western security presence in their region, Canada still has to show itself capable of availing itself of a favourable position to interact that this opportunity may present.
Situated closer to China than Canada is, local actors in the "Indo-Pacific" are clear-eyed about Beijing's intentions and do not need to be warned about its incisive behaviour. Despite their misgivings, they have a nuanced understanding of their own interests. Many cannot ignore that China remains the lifeblood of their economies. As such, they do not wish for an extra-regional power like the US to exacerbate tensions needlessly by bisecting the region along ideological lines. Such a dynamic would undermine the inclusive and integrated regional order underpinning decades of Asian peace. In this situation, I can see a valuable role for Canada as a diplomatic bridge between Asia and North America, as a mild and well-mannered still a middle power.
A national rethink of foreign policy and affairs is long overdue. It must be aimed at arresting decades of intellectual inertia and policy drift. If Canada continues lack new ideas on the world stage, the terms of our national foreign policy will be set by the United States, through default.
The problem is that a radical change in thinking is hard to bring about, when a "laissez faire" attitude has been so firmly established in recent decades.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment