At his party’s recent convention, Prime Minister Stephen Harper laid out his principles on foreign policy: “We know where our interests lie and who are friends are,” he said. Of course a country should take care of its own interests (if it doesn’t, who will?) and should support its allies. But Canada’s foreign policy should be more developed and in some ways more flexible.
Holding to basic principles is honourable but sometimes counterproductive. For instance, Mr. Harper has snubbed China for years under the overly idealistic pretext that the Chinese regime doesn’t respect human rights. This semi-boycott didn’t have any influence on the Chinese government, and it hurt Canada’s interests. Mr. Harper is still having a hard time mending fences with the Chinese.
The same awkwardness was manifest when Canada applied – too late and half heartedly – for a temporary seat at the United Nations Security Council. Some believe that Canada lost the seat to Portugal because of its unbending support for Israel. But this was a peripheral cause. Canada’s defeat was mostly due to the massive support of European countries and Latin America for Portugal, and to the Harper government’s enduring lack of sophistication in international affairs.
If Mr. Harper had developed a wider network of allies abroad, and if he had encouraged Canadian diplomats to do so at their own level, perhaps Canada would have gained more votes at the UN. At least, it could have tried to turn the tide that favoured Portugal.
Mr. Harper is a bright and educated man, but he hadn’t travelled much outside Canada when he took the reins of power. He was then 47, too old and too busy to make up for this absence of experiences abroad. Travelling or studying on other continents is not a matter of visiting famous sites and eating exotic food. It represents a sum of diverse and rich experiences that change and enlighten a person.
When he participates in international forums, Mr. Harper often seems ill at ease. He is shy and defensive, and he doesn’t seem to be able to connect on a personal level with other heads of states and governments, as Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien so famously did.
It is paradoxical indeed that Mr. Harper, a shrewd tactician on domestic matters, doesn’t seem to know his way around the world.
Alas, “control freaks” make bad diplomats. Mr. Harper’s authoritarian and secretive behaviour, during his minority governments, was a huge problem in domestic affairs, but it was catastrophic for Canadian diplomacy. Even ambassadors were held on a tight leash and forced to ask permission for the most banal initiatives.
Mr. Harper considerably increased Canada’s military capacity, which was necessary, but some of his initiatives are questionable. For instance, why did he blindly rush into the military coalition against Libya, a coalition with no common goal and no rational strategy? Why is he now extending this mission for three months, at a time when several European members of the coalition are backing out? Even in France, which was (with Great Britain) the major proponent of the attack on Libya, most observers realize that this mission is caught in a quagmire.
Will things change, now that John Baird, a close friend of the Prime Minister, is in charge of Foreign Affairs? Maybe not, hopefully yes, but it’s too early to tell.
Enjoy the convenience of having The Globe and Mail delivered right to your door, your mobile phone and computer. From exclusive content and mobile apps to online tools and loyalty programs, The Globe lets you experience Canada's deepest coverage of national, international, business, and lifestyle news where you want, when you want.
© Copyright 2011 The Globe and Mail Inc. All Rights Reserved.
444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON Canada M5V 2S9Phillip Crawley, Publisher
© 2011 The Globe and Mail Inc. All Rights Reserved.
You have selected to add:
Please select which watchlist you would like to add to:
Rather add to your Stocklist instead? Click here
Read Full Article »