About Turn! Time to Revise Canada’s Foreign Policy

[ruxted]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

Link to Original Article on Ruxted.ca

Part 1: CORNERSTONE TO STUMBLING BLOCK

ANCIEN RÉGIME

For most of the past 40 years Canada has, metaphorically, “looked North.”  In so doing it has turned its back on its friend and neighbour, America and offered its right hand to Europe.

Our disinclination to embrace the Americans is older than Canada itself.  It is rooted in our French colonial past when 'les habitants' looked South, at the British colonies, with fear and distrust.  Our institutionalized anti-Americanism was reinforced when the 'loyalists' fled revolutionary America seeking the safety of the familiar British crown.  French and English Canadians were united in opposing American efforts, in the war of 1812, to incorporate Canada into the vigorous new republic. 

Equally, our ties to Europe are quite natural.  Most Canadians (but a steadily shrinking majority) regard themselves as being of European stock.  Europe is familiar.  For many it is the soil in which family roots are sunk.  Twice in the 20th century Canadians answered Europe's call for help; 100,000 of the Greatest Canadians lie in European graves – they died protecting Europe from itself.

NATO

Canadians were instrumental in imagining and then creating the North Atlantic Alliance.  For decades Canadians sent their young men and women to stand on guard for Western Europe against a very real threat from the former USSR.  Today a much expanded North Atlantic Alliance seeks new relevance – having been completely successful in its avowed aim of safeguarding “the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law” by seeking “to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area” and resolving “to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security.” The expanded, post Cold War NATO stretched its wings by playing a lead role in dealing with the crisis in the Balkans but many observers saw that as NATO's final act in 'securing' Europe rather than a new beginning.

For some European members the North Atlantic component of NATO is a problem.  The Americans and Canadians are problematical.  Some Europeans believe that North American influence in NATO is impeding the development of a distinctly European foreign policy and a concomitant European military force.

But for Canada, for a half century and more, NATO was the cornerstone of our foreign and defence policies.

AFGHANISTAN

Afghanistan represents NATO's first real attempt at significant 'out of area' operations.  NATO rushed to aid the USA in the wake of the dastardly 9/11 sneak attack; Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty was invoked for the first time ever.  Some NATO nations, including Canada, sent troops to Afghanistan, early in 2002 in Canada's case, to fight alongside the USA in its efforts to help the Afghan people defeat the al Qaeda supporting Taliban and install a more representative and acceptable Afghan government.  In so doing NATO nations, including Canada, were acting in their own national self interests: the Taliban were, and remain, a threat to Central Asia – the ancient and historic 'cockpit' which joins Asia, the Middle East and Europe.  If the Taliban succeeded then their 'guests' would continue to have a form base from which to attack NATO members – as Osama bin laden promised to do.

But, for many NATO members, not including Canada, self interest required only 'all aid short of war.'  It was only after the situation in much of Afghanistan was stabilized that many European NATO members decided it was safe enough to deploy troops to Kabul – and ISAF was born.  Canada's initial, principled response, combat troops for Kandahar, was, for practical military reasons, a 'one off' commitment.  In 2003 Canada and most European nations were searching for ways to resist American pressure to join in the Iraq war.  ISAF offered a perfect 'way out' – military operations in Afghanistan, sanctioned by the UN and envisioned when Article 5 was invoked, which were unlikely to involve much fighting or major casualties, and which allowed Canada, and others to tell the Americans that they were fully committed in Afghanistan.  Who can forget then Defence Minister John McCallum scurrying off to Brussels begging for a 'lead' role for Canada in Kabul – all to prevent Canada having to debate, and ultimately reject, a role in Iraq?

Today, thanks to decisions taken by a previous, Liberal government, Canadian Forces are engaged in intense combat operations in Afghanistan, against a skilled, determined, shadowy enemy.

Today the shoe is on the other foot: Canada is now on the outside, looking in at the safe, comfortable Eurocentric Kabul Multinational Brigade and Joint Commands North and West which tie down thousands of combat troops – sheltered behind national caveats (each offering far more protection than body armour or LAV IIIs) which preclude combat operations.

Today we see that French President Jacques Chirac wants to form a 'contact group' to discuss the situation in Afghanistan.  Ruxted believes Chirac is making this suggestion on behalf of the very large majority of Europeans (people and governments) who want nothing to do with fighting the Taliban because they, the Europeans, are both: casualty averse and unconvinced of the utility of operations in Afghanistan, or anywhere outside Europe, for that matter.  Recent press reports on German resistance, and jubilation at a successful resistance to Canadian pressure to leave their fortified holiday camps in the North of Afghanistan and help with the fighting in the South indicate the depth of the split in NATO over a fundamental issue: unity of purpose.

Ruxted does not begrudge the Europeans their view – heaven knows it is shared by a substantial minority of Canadians.  The Europeans live in free and democratic societies – thanks, in very large measure to Canadian sacrifices of lives on the fields of battle and treasure during the cold war.  They are free to make their own choices – thanks again to those same Canadian sacrifices.

Canada has chosen a different path.  The Parliament of Canada, more than once, has affirmed Canada's three part role in Afghanistan which is to:

• help Afghanistan rebuild;
• defend our national interests; and
• ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs.

(See: The Afghan Debate, other Ruxted articles and Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs website.)

It appears to Ruxted that, increasingly, NATO is less and less a useful 'cornerstone' for Canada and, more and more, a stumbling block.

Ruxted believes that all ISAF has accomplished, as a NATO mission, is to provide 'cover' for the Europeans and, for a time, Canada, allowing them to avoid the hugely unpopular Iraq war.  The 'real work' of ISAF, helping Afghanistan to rebuild, is, for all military intents and purposes, done in the North and West and in Kabul.  In the South and East it cannot begin in earnest until American, British, Canadian and Dutch forces bring security to the regions by defeating the Taliban.  Since most of the other NATO nations refuse to help in this endeavour Ruxted contends that NATO has failed – it was, largely, unnecessary in the North, West and Kabul and it is invisible in the South and East, where it is needed.

NATO is not just a stumbling block, it may be aiding and abetting the Taliban.  NATO may be part of the problem.

What problem?

The problem Ruxted sees is that we have not taken a clear, hard, sustained look at our foreign policy for too long a time.

Over 18 months ago the former, Liberal government issued a revised foreign policy statement, not a full blown White Paper.

The prime minister of the day said: “… a government needs to take a hard and comprehensive look at what is working and what is not in its foreign policy; at how the world is evolving and whether Canada is prepared; at how best to project Canadian values and interests into the world and make a real difference in the lives of its embattled peoples, now and in the future.  This is the right time to review our foreign policy.  Why? Because the world is changing, quickly and radically, and these changes matter to Canada—not in abstract terms, and not only to students of international relations, but tangibly and to everyone. Our security, our prosperity and our quality of life all stand to be influenced and affected by these global transformations …”

Nothing has changed, except that the pace of global change has, probably accelerated, making the need to answer the questions: are we prepared; how best to protect and project Canada’s values and interests; how to make a difference in the world?

Coming soon: Part 2: A NEW FOREIGN POLICY APPROACH

 

[ruxted]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

Link to Original Article on Ruxted.ca

Part 2: A NEW FOREIGN POLICY APPROACH

Given that NATO was the cornerstone of our foreign and defence policy and given that NATO has become a stumbling block as Canada tries to regain and reassert its traditional (for nearly half our national existence) role as a leading middle power then: what to do?

THE NATURE OF POLICY

We must remember that our foreign policy is all about advancing Canada’s interests in the world by doing things about, with, for and, occasionally, to other countries.  Foreign policy does not stand on its own – it flows from a ‘national policy’ which integrates social, economic, defence, fiscal, cultural and foreign polices into a single whole which aims to provide Canadians with two thing: Peace and Prosperity.

Peace is more than just the absence of war – it implies an ability of each and every Canadian to go about his lawful business, anywhere in the world, without undue fear or risk.

Prosperity is more than just a ‘chicken in every pot’ – it implies the capacity for Canadians, individually and collectively, to enjoy the blessings of our land and the fruits of our labours and to share them with others, too.

The world, according to US observer Thomas Friedman, is flat.  He points out, in a recent book, that technology has fundamentally altered the global ‘playing field’ – flattening it.  The important lesson is that change is the only constant.  The global dynamics of 1946, when Canada was a leader in forming NATO are long gone.  The situation which existed in 1966, when Canada broke with US policy in Asia is long gone.  Ditto the situation which prevailed in 1988 when Canada sought to strengthen its military ties with the US and NATO – just as the Cold war was ending.  There is no reason to assume that the ‘solutions’ to the problems of the ‘40s, ‘60s and ‘80s are still appropriate twenty, forty or sixty yeas on.

The current, unipolar interregnum in which America bestrides the globe with unchallenged military power cannot last.  China and India, especially, are growing in economic and military power.  As Friedman points out: China and India have not forced us to join a ‘race for the bottom,’ instead they challenge us to a race for the top – one on which they plan to achieve and surpass the sort of social, cultural and economic power which seems, in 2006, to be the nearly exclusive purview of the USA.

While there is, for the moment – and it may be a very, very long moment – a violent ‘clash of civilizations’ between radical, fundamentalists, medieval Islamists and the (broadly) secular, liberal, enlightened West, there is, on the horizon, another clash: a more peaceful but equally important clash between conservative Asian social, cultural, economic and political ambitions and those of the liberal West.

The latter ‘clash’ will be about who leads the 21st century’s global social and cultural changes.  It is possible, indeed probable that the global ‘economic pie’ will continue to expand such that the West and Asia will both improve the standards of living for most of their peoples without ‘beggaring’ their neighbours or competitors.  The issue is less likely to be about how the wealth is shared than about whose (Western (Anglo-American & Continental European) or Eastern (Chinese & Indian)) social and cultural values shape the 21st century markets.  This clash can be and should be peaceful.  Indeed ‘growing the pie’ so as to ensure peaceful competition will require all the main competitors to share the burden of making and keeping global peace – even in regions which, currently, appear doomed to chaos and violence for generations.

A NEW POLICY FRAMEWORK

Canada needs to affirm it policy goals.  Building upon the existing goals for the Afghanistan mission, Ruxted proposes:

• help create the conditions which will promote global peace and security;
• defend our national interests; and
• ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs.

NATO and Afghanistan are not the sole or even the primary reasons for a change in Canadian foreign policy direction, but they are a catalyst which should drive the change.  Ruxted sees three key components to the required change.

First: Canada needs to reaffirm our 'charter membership' in the West – a membership we earned and maintained at a huge cost.  We need to help, perhaps to lead our traditional allies to establish a loose, probably informal but effective alignment (not a formal alliance) based, initially, upon: Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States.  India will be a likely member in the first expansion.

Let us forswear the term Anglosphere because it is unnecessarily provocative – nationally and internationally.  Additionally, it is possible that other proven reliable European and Asian partners might join when the initial group decides to expand or may form their own cooperative alignments – in the overarching goal of creating the conditions which will promote global peace and security.

Even after it expands the group should be kept small: restricted to well established democracies which have demonstrated a willingness and ability to carry a full and fair share of the burden of policing the dangerous world of the 21st century.

Second: Canada needs to turn about.

Canada needs to “look South” again – towards our good friend and neighbour and our most important trading partner: the USA.  By turning about Canada will, also, extend its strong right arm to the Pacific: towards major trading partners like China, India, Japan, and South Korea; towards old friends like Fiji, Malaysia, and Singapore, and towards traditional allies like Australia and New Zealand.  Ruxted says 'again' because this proposal is neither radical nor new – Canada cooperated closely with the USA in the not too distant past – within the living memory of Ruxted members, and it created the Colombo Plan (akin to the US Marshal Plan) to help our Commonwealth friends in the Asia/Pacific region.  Canada will be 'welcomed back' by trading partners, old friends and traditional allies alike.

We need not, should not, indeed cannot, just abandon Europe.  Nor should we abandon NATO, but we should lead the charge in revising NATO to serve a new, much more constrained, 'European area' (which might include parts of North Africa) security role.  The emphasis, quoting again from the North Atlantic Treaty, should now be on “preserving peace and security” - the peace and security won in the cold war.  NATO can shrivel in this new task while, perhaps, becoming a useful sub-contractor for planning and mounting operations on behalf of the UN.

This new, loose 'coalition of democracies' should also offer its services to the UN and NATO as a group which can plan and conduct peacemaking operations and turn them over, later, to peacekeepers – peacekeepers provided by nations less able to conduct and sustain modern, offensive combat operations.

Third: Canada also needs to affirm, at home and abroad, our status as one of the worlds most favoured nations – a nation which, relative to 90% of the UN's member states, is sophisticated, rich and powerful.  Wealth and power ought to be accompanied by responsibility, including a responsibility to help and protect less fortunate nations.  Canada has talked, a lot, about this; it is time to let actions speak louder than words.  The candidate members of Ruxted's 'coalition of democracies' are, in the main, similarly favoured – the exception, India, is moving very quickly to join the favoured nations' club.  These nations can and should work together to shoulder a full and fair share of the global security burden – as befits rich and powerful nations, and to share the undoubted benefits of democracy with those who are having difficulty with the progression thereto.

CONCLUSION

The current Canadian government has made much of its goal to “ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs.”  That is commendable rhetoric.  It is time to make actions speak louder than words.  It is time to make an about turn and rejoin traditional allies in leading by word and deed.  Ruxted believes that Canadians want to be leaders in bringing peace and prosperity to our troubled world.  Reshaping our foreign policy would be good policy and good politics, too.

 

[AIC_2K5]

Good read, some very interesting ideas. I especially find interesting the proposal to use the 'coalition of democracies' in the initial combat operation while less capable militaries take over the traditional peacekeeping duties.

Most people tend to share the same view towards India as the Ruxted editors in that they could be a powerfuly ally to help fight our cause. While they do have a very large and decently-equipped military, I think their interests are more focused in the regional context and I don't believe they share the same global foreign policy ambitions as Canada and friends.

 

[armyvern]

Once again, Ruxted.ca comes out with an excellent article featuring problems being faced...and solutions to them!! Good on them.

Vern

 

[GAP]

certainly different from the pap the MSM is feeding us.

 

[stfx_monty]

This was an excellent read,

I am, however, concerned about the idea of taking such an abrupt step as walking out on NATO. NATO has been a cornerstone in our foreign and defence policies for fifty years. I agree that NATO is not performing admirably right now, but what would leaving accomplish?

Operationally:
Would it make the Europeans shift their forces in Afghanistan?
Would it make our operations easier if we were outside of the NATO command structure?
Do we have control of/access to enough non-NATO assets to continue?

From a national policy level:
Does it make sense to leave a group that allows us to influence global events alongside like minded states? NATO isn't only in Afghanistan. Would we tie ourselves explicitly to the US? It seems to me that what has made NATO attractive is that is provides a counterweight politically to US dominance.

I am concerned over a knee jerk reaction to our current situation, rather than something that is in our long term interest. Certainly an interesting read though.

 

[George Wallace]

stfx_monty

I would like to agree with you and I personally look favourably in our being a major player in NATO.  I also thought we had a relevant role in the past in the old SEATO organization.  SEATO has faded away.  Perhaps NATO will too.

The last twenty years have seen the Defence and Foreign Affairs budgets cut drastically.  It may become a matter that we can no longer afford the luxury of being in NATO.  That being the case we will have to look at things closer to home.  We are left with NORAD, the defence of North America, and the Defence of Canada.  Will we be reduced in capabilities so much that we will eventually not even have the abilities to defend North America, nor ourselves? 

Canadians have to wake up.  Hard decisions have to be made.

 

[KevinB]

Excellent read and very timely.

I feel that in most issues prioritizing the ABCA alliance (Australia, Britian, Canada, and America) is the road ahead for Canada

kudos to Ruxted again!

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, from John Ibbitson in today’s (19 Dec 06) Globe and Mail is pertinent; it is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061219.wxibbitson19/BNStory/National/home

The sound of Canada's silence

JOHN IBBITSON
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

WASHINGTON — The American bureaucrat, over a glass of wine, had a simple question: "Where has Canada gone?"

If there is a general election next year, the biggest issue should be the fact of the election itself, and the dangerous instability of Canadian federal politics, which others are starting to notice.

Promising to join missile defence, then pulling out; shifting our stand on the Middle East; taxing income trusts without warning: The policy incoherence of Canadian governments is damaging Canada's reputation abroad.

Where there is no incoherence, there is silence. At international forums, Canada increasingly doesn't show up ready to play. Junior officials substitute for the minister or deputy minister, with no mandate to take a constructive part in the discussions.

At a Washington conference hosted by the Woodrow Wilson Centre's Canada Institute, Grant Aldonas, until recently the U.S. undersecretary of commerce for international trade, mourned "the lack of an articulation of Canada's purpose, both in the world economy and in foreign affairs."

At its best, he told the conference, Canada sets an example for open trade, honest dealings and multilateral co-operation that "always requires the United States to play the game at a higher level. And that has been missing, honestly, in our relationship."

We all know the reason for Canada's sudden silence.

The federal government has been distracted, first by the internecine wars within the Liberal Party, then by the political weaknesses of the Martin government, and now by the similar electoral fragility of the Harper Conservatives.

Foreign-policy deliberations are increasingly undermined by partisan politics. Paul Martin started out promising to repair Canada-U.S. relations and ended with an anti-American election rant that left senior figures south of the border quietly disgusted.

Canada-U.S. relations have improved under Stephen Harper, but the Prime Minister has annoyed and alienated European leaders over Canada's abandonment of its Kyoto obligations and its unqualified support for Israel.

Foreign observers don't know whether recent changes in Canadian foreign policy represent a genuine shift in position, or are simply pre-election strategies that could be reversed if another party comes to power.

After all, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush have greeted three Canadian prime ministers in the past four years. It's like the guy who brings a different girlfriend every year to the family reunion: Eventually, you give up trying to keep track.

The problem of rotation extends into Foreign Affairs. Foreign ministers traditionally are senior statesmen who are rarely shuffled out of their portfolio. But Canada has had four foreign-affairs ministers in four years: John Manley, Bill Graham, Pierre Pettigrew and Peter MacKay.

The department has also been shaken by the internal warfare over the Martin government's decision to split International Trade from Foreign Affairs, and the Harper government's decision to put them back together again.

There is some nervousness in Mr. MacKay's office over whether he will survive the next cabinet shuffle. But be it through shuffle or election, the odds are good that, in 2007, Foreign Affairs will get a new political head, making it five for five.

Nothing is going to improve soon. The enduring presence of the Bloc Québécois, the weakness of the Liberal Party in Western Canada and rural Ontario, and the equivalent weakness of the Conservative Party in the three big cities leave little hope for a future majority government, which is why responsible politicians would work to ensure that minority Parliaments last, at the least, two years.

Instead, this year's crop of opposition leaders is openly conspiring to force an election, while the Tories continue to search for a breakthrough strategy in Quebec and urban Ontario.

Unless Canadians can find a way to elect a majority government, we may have to shift to proportional representation to elect the House of Commons, in hopes of creating stable coalitions.

Until then, the world will get less Canada. At least it's nice to know we're missed.

jibbitson@globeandmail.com

The last three governments have degraded our foreign policy: Chrétien - through institutionalizing sophomoric anti-Americanism, Martin – through dithering and then falling back on the electorally lucrative sophomoric anti-Americanism, and Harper – through ignoring foreign affairs in the relentless pursuit of electoral advantage.

Ruxted is right: it is time for Canada to affirm its foreign policy goals – through an all up debate in our Parliament or, if worst comes to worst, during an election campaign when, sadly, we have become all too accustomed to politicians telling bare faced lies in order to entice us to vote for them; it is time for Canada to ‘turn about’ and face the real world – the one we helped build; and it is time for Canada to acknowledge that it is one of the privileged few nations in the world and that it has a Responsibility to Protect the less fortunate in the world and that the best  way to exercise that responsibility is through leadership.

 

[observor 69]

Putting down his latte :
Speaking of the Min of Foreign Affairs, a blog discussion on Peter's misstep in the Commons ref his "dog" comment refers to him as the  "dumb blond in the affair."

 

[dglad]

I would love to see an election fought over an issue as important and substantive as foreign policy--Canada's role in the world, in the 21st century.  Instead, we've had elections fought over the most prosaic things like health care, or the ancient, go-nowhere, navel-gazing drivel of "national unity".  These aren't issues to inspire; they aren't about vision or leadership.  They're just bureaucracy writ large, or tedious damage control.  Afghanistan is doing many things for this country, the effects of some of which are probably years out yet; however, if one of those things is to provoke Canadians and their "leaders" to engage in a real debate about where this country is going--and SHOULD be going--in this new century, then that's a good thing.

Incidentally, one point I note missing from this thread generally--the UN.  This probably underscores just how irrelevant this organization has become i.e. writers can't even be bothered to bitch about it anymore.  This is an important message, I think...time for some new, meaningful and progressive organizations to step into the global cooperation "gig".

 

[Edward Campbell]

Putting down his latte :
Speaking of the Min of Foreign Affairs, I got a smile from a blog that referred to him as " the dumb blond in the affair."

Whilst Peter McKay is certainly not the best foreign minister in Canadians history* he is far from being the worst and he's not the villain of the piece, either.

The 'villain' is Stephen Harper who appears to me to be following the error filled path trod by Pierre Trudeau (1969) - thinking that foreign policy ,might be a subset of domestic policy, and worse of electoral policy.  Trudeau was wrong in '69 and Harper is wrong now.  Foreign policy and domestic (social) policies and economic policy and defence policy are all equal subsets of an overarching national policy, as Ruxted said.


----------
* that would be Louis St Laurent, probably the only really good, almost great foreign minister we ever had.  Mike Pearson got the Nobel prize for his diplomacy but he, himself, simply followed the policy - and it was a formal, stated policy - set out by St Laurent just after World War II.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
Incidentally, one point I note missing from this thread generally--the UN.  This probably underscores just how irrelevant this organization has become i.e. writers can't even be bothered to bitch about it anymore.  This is an important message, I think...time for some new, meaningful and progressive organizations to step into the global cooperation "gig".

Agreed, and Ruxted suggests that the traditional (ABCA + NZ) allies, plus Singapore and maybe India and a couple of like minded Euros (Denmark, Netherlands and Norway come to my mind) should form the nucleus of a new alignment of responsible democracies to do that chore.

 

[George Wallace]

Have we really had a "Real" Foreign Policy or have we just taken the lazy way out and played "tag along with the crowd" and let the major decisions in our Foreign Policy be decided by diplomats in New York?  The UN decides we need to send Peacekeepers into some Region and Canada steps up and declares that we will send Troops.  Hanging on to the coattails of the UN seems to have been the only Foreign Policy we have been left with. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Have we really had a "Real" Foreign Policy or have we just taken the lazy way out and played "tag along with the crowd" and let the major decisions in our Foreign Policy be decided by diplomats in New York?  The UN decides we need to send Peacekeepers into some Region and Canada steps up and declares that we will send Troops.  Hanging on to the coattails of the UN seems to have been the only Foreign Policy we have been left with. 

St. Laurent proposed and, despite an aging and ailing King’s* reservations, implemented a distinctively Canadian foreign policy which included:

• Active support for the Truman/Marshall/Acheson initiatives to rebuild and reshape the new West; and

• Assume a “leading middle power” role – in the creation of NATO, in embryonic (1948) UN peacekeeping, and, especially, in the Colombo Plan – of which, ironically, Canada is no longer a member.  While St Laurent helped create the UN he never allowed it to assume control over Canada’s sovereignty; that (surrendering our national sovereignty to Jacque Chirac’s anti-American whims) was a Chrétien innovation.

This was a sharp departure from the King/Skelton version of foreign policy which was a timid thing, characterized by severe and recurring bouts of Anglophobia and a general tendency to shelter behind the USA.  We had no foreign policy prior to 1931 (Statutes of Westminster) because our sovereignty was incomplete.

It’s a shame that the 75th anniversary of our real independence as a fully sovereign nation passed unnoticed.  Historical ignorance, maybe ignorance and apathy, seem destined to join greed and envy as the defining characteristics of Canadians.


----------
* William Lyon Mackenzie King, the prime minister, not George VI, the sovereign

 

[George Wallace]

Sorry Edward.  I should have qualified my statement as to "in the last twenty or thirty years".

 

[a_majoor]

As noted in other threads and by Ruxted, there is an embryonic formation which could take front and centre as Canada's 21rst century policy foundation: the Anglosphere.

These nations (the United States, the UK, Australia are the core of the idea) share a common set of values, a common history and a common language. Commonwealth nations also share these features to a greater or lesser extent, and India would certainly be the jewel in the crown of such an alliance or grouping. Creating the Anglosphere as a formal institution could be the counterpart to St Laurent's creation of post war 20th century Canadaian foreign policy:

St. Laurent proposed and, despite an aging and ailing King’s* reservations A visionary Prime Minister/Foreign Minister, implemented a distinctively Canadian foreign policy which included:

• Active support for the Truman/Marshall/Acheson Bush/Blair/Howard initiatives to rebuild and reshape the new West Anglosphere; and

• Assume a “leading middle power” role – in the creation of NATO, in embryonic (1948) UN peacekeeping, and, especially, in the Colombo Plan – of which, ironically, Canada is no longer a member the Anglosphere and its unique military, economic and political institutions.  While St Laurent (insert visionary here) helped create the UN Anglosphere he never allowed it to assume control over Canada’s sovereignty.

I suppose it is possible that Steven Harper could embrace this project, although in practical terms there is very little time to develop and sell this idea to Canadians, much less the Anglosphere community, before the presumptive spring election. If the Liberals were to win the next election, or some unholy "Red-Green" or "Red-Orange" coalition government, then I expect that our foreign policy will continue to drift, and we may end up waiting for an invitation to join the Anglosphere as a junior partner, rather than creating it to be a vehicle to advance our interests and take our place in the world.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I doubt that any Canadian prime minister will ever lead in creating an Anglosphere – no one needs the domestic political uproar which would ensue.

A Canadian PM might, should, I think, re-examine our foreign policy, as PM Martin promised but failed to do, and I also think any fair, clear-headed re-examination would indicate that we must abandon broadly based, UNish multilateralism and focus, instead, on cooperating with a smaller number of traditional allies and like minded friendly democracies in order to share the burden of global security – a burden which is ours by virtue of our historical, geographic, political and social/cultural good fortune.

If Canada, as one of the world’s most favoured nations cannot, will not take up that burden then we deserve the poor, sad, ignoble future which the lazy, lax, Liberal, latté sipping elites in Toronto have planned for us.

 

[cplcaldwell]

As Ruxted states in the article "let us foreswear the term Anglosphere". From a politcal point of view the whole thing would be digestable to the fishwives in that context IMHO.



To stir the pot, all these learned and articulate minds and I have yet to hear anything of Africa?

Key players have been identified in Europe, Asia, Oceania and America, but no one yet deigns to prognosticate on a 'new friend in Africa'.

Certainly any durable foreign policy strategy must include a friend in Africa?

 

[a_majoor]

The Anglosphere is the current name for this grouping, and certainly describes it best, but I'm sure anyone in power who is visionary enough to embark on the project will come up with some  suitable name or acronym to mollify domestic opposition. For now I will continue to use that name simply for consistency.

Since creating an Anglosphere alliance (or whatever name is eventually chosen) fully formed like Athena springing from the forehead of Zeus isn't a likely proposition; "we" could go about it by establishing a series of links such as free trade pacts, economic treaties, preferential foreign investment to and from other Anglosphere partners, engage in lots of joint naval exercises and cross invite ministers for various summits, State visits and "talks" about matters of mutual interest (which is the reason we would want to get together in the first place). cplcaldwell's point about Africa is interesting, the only nation there which might qualify as an Anglosphere partner would be South Africa, otherwise we would have to count on India and the UK to take charge Anglosphere interests in that area of the world (a sort of sandwich play).

However it is done, unless "we" get involved on the ground floor, Canada will have very little influence in the final structure, assuming we even get invited to join. After all, we are slipping in the world, as Spain's calls for us to be replaced in the G-8 by them would indicate.