by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC,
FEC, CET, P. Eng.
Former Member of Parliament
Pickering-Scarborough East
Events on the global stage are in a dynamic state. They are evolving rapidly and quite dangerously for global geopolitical stability. Europe is facing a dangerous war, there are notable tensions in Asia, and Africa is in complete chaos. America is facing economic problems and Canada is diplomatically missing in action.
Canadian diplomacy seems to be in a phase of complete complacency. Canada has been so convinced of its virtue as a force for good that it has missed the forest for the trees. The bare truth is, that Canada, once an important and respected player on the international stage, has lost its influence.
This reality, which should be shocking and distressing, has instead, been quietly accepted as fact, and ignored by successive Canadian governments.
So the question is, how did Canada arrive in this situation?
For the past 20 years, Canada’s diplomacy has been based primarily on exporting our values. The slogan “the world needs more Canada,” as vain as it sounds, has, in fact, been at the heart of Canada’s approach to international affairs.
Unfortunately, this static approach did not take into consideration the rapid evolutions in world politics. This kind of approach is similar to the mentality that “the budget will balance itself”.
Canadians’ worldview has been one shaped by self-comparison. A legacy of middle-power status, an apparent successful immigration program, advancement of social norms, access to quality education, and vast natural resources – bolstered by survey after survey ranking Canada as one the best places to live – have contributed to this inebriation.
Successive governments have been all too happy to reinforce and tout these positives and reflect them proudly, regardless of how out-of-touch it is with an ever-changing situation in the world. Programs such as Canada’s feminist foreign policy are an example of looking great and grandiose on paper but grossly missing in practice.
Such stereotypes as Canada’s long-touted commitment to women’s empowerment through its international assistance are cheap words unsubstantiated by real action. It claims that it is positioning Canada as a champion for gender equality through its international assistance programming. While new initiatives are commendable, let’s be blunt: there are other global issues of more immediate and demanding priorities which seem to have escaped the attention of Canadian diplomacy, still living in the shadows of the Cold War era.
Starting in the 1990s, the world began re-ordering. Emerging powers such as China strategically positioned themselves for a new post-colonial world previously dominated by the West.
The Global South was beginning to affirm itself, seeking investment and partners, just as the United States and its allies became distracted by the aftermath of 9/11 and the global war on terror. Canada, after notably declining to accompany the United States into Iraq, wholeheartedly followed the Americans into Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Thus began a period of western style legitimized regime changes, all adhering to the notion of self-defence and protection of civilians, rule of law, and of course, an eagerness to flex its newly found military and diplomatic muscle.
Canadian governments wholeheartedly joined the U.S., France, Britain and others in supporting the Arab Spring movements to topple autocratic leaders such as Khaddafi in Libya etc. This process, led by the U.S, continues today in different shapes and forms.
What Canada failed to assess was that this alignment of it’s newly found foreign policy in the full shadow of U.S. foreign policy, was ill-perceived by many nations that might otherwise have been favourable to Canada.
For a superpower like the United States, with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, it is one thing to conduct foreign policy in a hubristic, self-referential and self-congratulatory fashion. With its complete alignment to U.S. foreign policy, without any questions asked, Canada failed to recognize that in a global game of musical chairs,
our superiority complex left us the ones standing. So convinced of our virtue as a force for good in the world, we delighted in small wins here and there while completely missing the ever changing realities of the world.
As Canada pursued a so-called “principled foreign policy,” later internally re-phrased with big words such as “values-based diplomacy,” trying to reshape the world in our image, it stopped listening to what other nations actually wanted – and stopped considering what was in its own best interest. For years, governments in the developing world, albeit not all democracies, have sought partners, not benefactors with social strings attached. Appreciative of assistance in education and health, they also wanted help building infrastructure, not only a public scolding on human rights.
Instead, Canada robotically (perhaps even disdainfully) stayed on its course and even doubled down, attaching a myriad of social conditions in exchange for support.
For example, Canada’s contributions to the UN system are increasingly earmarked for specific gender-based programs. This practice has been deplored by the UN itself because of the added cost of delivery and reduction in resources directed to core programs – and by recipient countries for failing to address their own priorities. It is a clear Ivory tower syndrome. Mixed with a little diaspora politics, values-based foreign policy played well at home, but it fell miserably flat abroad. Canada essentially failed to recognize that it was annoying foreign governments, including some of its closest historical friends. Failing to adapt to the changing world has also been fostered by a lack of co-ordination between government departments. Global Affairs Canada no longer really leads foreign affairs. The result is the absence of coherence and priority management.
Sometimes, departments even work at cross purposes. For example, a year prior to the vote for a seat on the UN Security Council when Canada was a candidate, the immigration department unrolled cumbersome biometrics requirement for new visas despite Global Affairs Canada’s objection.
The result? Canada took a big hit abroad at a time when it could least afford it.
Another element that has undermined our international stature has been the bureaucratization of Global Affairs Canada. The qualities that had made Canadian diplomacy so effective, such as strong analysis, intelligence gathering, international networks, negotiation skills and time spent abroad have been replaced with a focus on internal management prowess.
Over the last 20 years, officers who rose to senior positions did so based on administrative skills, not foreign-policy experience. We lost years of foreign-affairs know-how. This obviously means that the quantity and quality of information going back to Ottawa from foreign missions is much lower than it once was.
It is time to drastically change the approach of Canadian diplomacy. Canada needs a pragmatic foreign policy more closely tied to Canada’s interests, based less on virtue signaling and staffed by well qualified personnel. Feel-good diplomacy is not effective diplomacy. Canada should resist knee-jerk media statements and focus on advancing international collaboration on issues such as health, infrastructure, the environment and security.
Let’s be done with buzz words and press conferences to announce unrealistic, utopian aspirations. Canada needs is soft-spoken yet spirited diplomacy that truly reflects who we are, matched with the capabilities to back up our words.
What do you think?
