Soft power in Canadian foreign policy isn't much discussed these days. It used to be all the rage in Ottawa circles – the idea that moral example, worthy thoughts and treaties with high goals would make a real difference in the world. The land mines treaty was a prime example.
Instead, “hard power” – armed forces that can break things and kill people as need be – is the new focus of attention and money, especially in Afghanistan. Yes, indeed, our leaders are fond of saying, we can't win by military means alone, but still, a lot of that is essential.
This is just reality, but it is a pity that the soft side has faded from view. It lost reputation for at least three reasons.
In the first place, soft power is too obviously cheap. Diplomats are fewer and far less costly than soldiers. To governments using scarce dollars to chase votes at home, this is an attractive feature, but does not impress outsiders.
Next, much of the motive for the focus on soft power was a Canadian aversion to hard realities and choices, and to American foreign power and its very hard-edged component. So we could feel less anxious about our choices and morally superior to the Americans. What's not to like about that – except the disdain of the hard men? (Of course, much of soft old Europe has the same approach.)
Third, we clearly just weren't pulling our share in equipping our armed forces to meet our alliance needs. We had a strong reputation for peacekeeping, 50 years ago, and continued to believe that, even as we sank to below 30th in the United Nations capacity ranking.
Then, after 9/11 and especially after the Conservatives were elected in January, 2006, Canada changed. We began to take overt pride in our fighting men and women again, boost recruitment and buy equipment. This is all very good; no argument there at all.
Read Full Article »