First, it was not Canada's seat to lose. One could argue that Canada could have done better, but some folks (me!) predicted long ago that Canada was not going to win, before Canada's hand got weaker via spats with Saudi Arabia and China, before the shine of the Liberals was tarnished by the SNC-Lavalin scandal, before it became clear that the Liberal government was not going to much peacekeeping, nor perhaps have a very coherent foreign policy. I learned about five or so years ago at an embassy event that these campaigns to win these seats take eight or ten years. So, Canada was late to the competition. Trudeau should have aimed for a later cycle. Being late meant being less prepared and also perhaps been seen as an interloper. And the competition: Ireland and Norway! Two very good international citizens, that do much in terms of aid, peacekeeping, and other stuff. This also meant that a normal constituency for Canadian votes--Europe--was largely off the table. Have Ireland and Norway annoyed the entire Mideast by taking strongly pro-Israel stances? So, you can see Canada entered the race late with much baggage. Why did Canada deserve a seat more than Ireland or Norway? I have no idea. And obviously, Canada did not and perhaps could not make that case.
Second, Canada was the victim of some unfortunate circumstances that was mostly not Canada's fault. The election of Trump has rightfully caused the Trudeau government to focus far more attention on US-Canadian relations than on other stuff. That is the correct prioritization given what the US means to Canada. Which, of course, led to alienating China. I am sure China's moves to being a more belligerent rising power would have hit Canada in some way, but the extradition of the Huawei exec has been the source of much conflict. Countries seeking to suck up to China might not vote for Canada these days. Same goes for the Saudis. Given these circumstances getting 108 votes may not have been a bad outcome, less than last time, but more than one might have expected given these headwinds.
Third, one can look at Canadian foreign policy and, yes, blame Canada and Trudeau. Canada now has the lowest number of peacekeepers deployed in decades. When it did do something mildly significant, sending helicopters and medical personnel to Mali, Canada steadfastly refused to extend the mission when their replacements were slow to get there. Canada's aid budget is relatively small. Canada's biggest presence in Africa is probably via mining companies, and I am guessing those, even if relatively well-behaved, are not the best representatives of maple, moose, and the like.People are using this loss to argue that Canadian foreign policy is largely incoherent, that Global Affairs Canada are understaffed, underresourced (how many embassies does Canada have in Africa?), and may not play well with others or themselves (there may still be an aid/foreign office split within GAC). One could also argue that besides the seat itself, a campaign promise made long ago, Trudeau and his team don't really care that much about international relations.
Some, such as my colleague, Phil Lagassé, have argued that Canadians seem to have an entitlement attitude based on nostalgia. That the greatest hits in Canadian foreign policy are long ago. I am still new here (18 years is new, right?) so I don't really know what it was like long ago. I do think Canada has a good brand in the world, still. That Trudeau still has charisma that plays well. But Canada never really had a chance and never really invested that much in this effort. It chose the least risky, shortest possible peacekeeping mission, it did not invest more in foreign assistance, and it did not take a really bold stance that might have alienated some but perhaps won others over. A no-risk strategy simply would not work if starting from behind against very deserving countries.
So, where do we go from here? What would make sense is a comprehensive review of Canada's foreign policy. There hasn't been one in many, many years, but doing so might identify what matters most, what tools Canada can use to be more successful in its relations, strategies for deploying said tools, and so on. I do think that some of the critics are right--that Global Affairs Canada could do better with more engagement with academics (yes, I am always self-serving) and non-governmental organizations. While the Defence Policy Review that produced Strong, Secure, Engaged did not produce radical change, it gave Canada's defence folks critical signposts to direct their efforts. GAC only had the UN SC seat. It needs new, clearer directions for the next decade or so. And perhaps Canadian leaders could be more strategic about picking when to compete for a seat. For that blunder, yes, Trudeau should get the blame. For how Canada is perceived in the world, that is less the fault of the current government and more the reality of the situation it is in.
Do I expect Canada to figure out its role in the world? For this government to invest more resources? To do a foreign policy review? Ah, that is a post for another day. I am sure we are all depressed enough right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment