Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is an honour to be invited to speak during this
important month on your campus.
Canada is increasingly seen as an example of a
successful pluralistic and democratic society with the rule of law;
the world, however, is changing rapidly and we have become complacent
in our reputation. Our role as a leader and role model is in decline.
This is why events like International Month here at MSVU are a
valuable contribution to improve the knowledge, interest and
commitment of individual Canadians to engage in international issues.
Atlantic Canada is traditionally a trader and the
link by sea for many of Canada’s international relationships,
including the Caribbean. As the home of a large part of our military,
it has long played a key role in Canada’s global activities. Nova
Scotia is also home to the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, the
institution which supports our contribution to international peace and
security. Canada’s global role is thus particularly near to the
hearts of many Atlantic Canadians. I must add that the many
post-secondary institution of Atlantic Canada are also excellent links
to the world. Two of our children have benefited from two of your
institutions.
Changing Role
Our reputation as the world’s “Boy Scout” evokes
images of Canada as a champion of human rights and dignity for all,
equality and fair dealing, and most importantly, world peace and
security. In the past, Canada has not hesitated to do what its
elected leaders deemed necessary to the accomplishment of these
goals. Our willingness to spend resources, and even Canadian lives,
validated and increased our reputation as a leader in peacekeeping and
a model for what is possible when one country reaches out to help
others.
Although none of us want to accept it, our
reputation worldwide has diminished considerably over the past 15
years as we grapple with the implications of changing global
circumstances. There is little doubt that our international
performance has fallen, especially after the 1994 Somalia debacle in
which some in the Canadian Peacekeepers were found to have tortured
and murdered the very civilians they had been sent to protect.
Equally distressing for our image as the world’s leading peacekeeper,
the numbers now place Canada in the 34th spot in terms of
contribution to global peacekeeping efforts, behind the United States,
with Bangladesh in first place as the world’s leading contributor to
peacekeeping missions. A widening gap now exists between how
Canadians view our role in the world and what we actually do.
International institutions in which Canada has
played a key role, such as NATO and the G8, are becoming less
significant as new players, such as India and China, move to the
centre of the global stage. Canada’s influence with the United
States, the world’s current superpower, has withered as well, as our
contributions to international security and global development have
decreased. On the home front, Canada’s military capability dwindles in
the face of increasing budget cutbacks and distaste among many
Canadians towards anything armed. In sum, as one European diplomat
put it, “The current trends are against Canada’s influence.”
Current Trends
This is not for a moment to say that Canada has not
made a difference in areas where we have really committed ourselves.
Canada was a key player in the campaign across the world to end
Apartheid in South Africa. Similarly, Canada, under Lloyd Axworthy,
took a courageous on the landmine issue, leading to the Landmine
Treaty signed by many in Ottawa. Canada has also forged a new norm for
the international human security agenda with our Responsibility to
Protect doctrine, which in theory provides that governments who abuse
human rights can no longer hide behind their sovereignty to perpetuate
those abuses.
As the Australian Gareth Evans of the International
Crisis Group put it, sovereignty must not be a “licence to commit
murder.” The military regime in Sudan, in the opinion of many
independent observers, has used sovereignty for precisely that purpose
in Southern Sudan for many years and in Darfur for many months. In
Southern Sudan, the number killed is huge. In Darfur alone, the number
of ‘Africans’ murdered to date is in the 200,000 range, with
approximately the same number dead of malnutrition or related
diseases. Isn’t 400,000 about the population of Halifax-Dartmouth?
External Voices Project
The interim report on the External Voices Project,
undertaken by the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, cites
three essentials that are missing from our foreign policy approach
today: firstly, a willingness to make clear choices; secondly, a
consistency in those choices and relationships over time; and lastly,
a determination to build world-class assets in the particular areas in
which we choose to lead.
Policy changes in these three areas have the
potential to go a long way in revitalizing Canada’s relevance in world
affairs, there are two other conditions that must be fulfilled if they
are to have any impact: A major shift in the way Canadians generally
approach foreign policy matters and a fundamental rethinking of the
way in which we allocate resources.
Background
At the end of World War II, Canada emerged as a key
player in the new geo-political reality. After the horrors of Nazi
gas chambers and concentration camps, Canadians understandably emerged
from war with the idea of it is inherently wicked. In the post-War
years, Canadians, perhaps naively, hoped that since peace was
restored, the world would never again wish such a blight upon itself
and consequently that the need for hard-hitting militaries and
assertive defence policies would gradually fade away. While this may
not have seemed unrealistic in the Canadian society, for many other
peoples, harmony was a distant dream. The realization slowly dawned
that the end of World War II did not spell an end conflict, but rather
sowed the seeds for new tensions and new and older forms of conflict.
UN Role
The end of World War II also saw the creation of
the United Nations as a body to influence the conduct of governments.
The collective security system of the UN assumed that governments and
legislators could now avoid the evils perpetrated by the Nazis and
their allies because the world had experienced it so directly.
Possible offenders would be thwarted by the overwhelming force of the
collective international community, or a least by its most powerful
representatives. Since multilateralism was the new order of the day,
it followed that a large armed forces were now unnecessary since
governments of goodwill would now act in concert to prevent future
threats to global security.
In hindsight, we now see how naive policies that
assumed an end to governments sustaining conflicts in too many corners
of the world were. The “never again” policies of the post-World War
II era quickly evaporated as the Cold War emerged among the victors.
The nuclear threat became a central concern and tensions heightened
the focus not only on the old European fault lines but also on the
emergence of China, with Korea and later Vietnam.
Peacekeeping Role
One side effect was that it also became possible
for Canada to respond to a broad array of international security
challenges, primarily peacekeeping, following the contribution of our
international statesman, Lester B. Pearson, in the creation of UN
Peacekeeping Forces. The increased capability of our peacekeepers and
the seeming willingness of the Canadian government to protect and
defend did not go unnoticed by the greater international community.
We were soon being asked and expected to do more and more. Canada’s
forward thinking response to the Cold War morphed into the presumption
of Canada as the world leader in international peacekeeping. Most
Canadians were proud of this role.
Trudeau Years
In the Trudeau years (1968-1979; 1980-1984), while
not keeping pace financially to sustain our forces, we did not cut
back on Canadian peacekeeping commitments. The government expanded our
roles abroad and the notion of Canada as the world’s leader in
peacekeeping became deeply embedded. With each new commitment of our
soldiers to various peacekeeping operations around the world, the
domestic and foreign expectation that Ottawa would keep on making such
contributions became more deeply entrenched at home and at the UN.
The end of the Cold War in 1989 brought with it a
changed geo-political landscape; the United States emerged as the
world’s sole superpower. Confidence in the ability of the United
Nations, the Security Council, and the United States to police the
world and prevent hostilities from degenerating into blood baths
somehow flourished even as Yugoslavia descended into a bloody ethnic
war and the US and others commenced the first crushing military
campaign in Iraq to curb its aggression towards Kuwait.
The hope that the United Nations would finally take
its place as the world’s leader of peaceful mediation and that the
Security Council would resolve disputes failed far too often since
1989. The idea that the various sanctions and pressures applied to
the despotic leaders of troubled nations by the UN and that the
Security Council members would apply unified military, economic, and
diplomatic power to prevent the horrors of the past has been undone by
the stark reality that not everyone is playing by the same rules.
Two paradigm shifts
In his much-quoted article, Canada in the Age of
Terror, Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian at Harvard, commented “One
of the great foreign challenges facing Canada is staying independent
in an age of empire…you can’t believe in multilateralism,
international law, unless you are prepared also to believe that
occasionally you have to step up to the plate and defend it, and by
force if necessary.” This is the source of one of Canada’s
international performance defects which is haunting us today.
Canada left the Cold War era relatively strong with
a sound defence and foreign affairs policy that was committed to
international security and prepared to take risks in support of that
policy. In South Africa in the 1980s, for example, we used our
influence with the G7, the Commonwealth, and the Francophonie,
connected with international leaders, and engaged the African National
Congress and the then South African government to fight against
Apartheid and then later provided governance and development support
during the transition to democracy.
In the early 90s, Canada was instrumental in laying
the groundwork for regional and international trade agreements, most
notably NAFTA and the WTO. We became a model for other regions. We
showed that economic integration could be compatible with political
independence, as exemplified by the close economic relationship Canada
has had with the U.S., while still maintaining policies that are
independent from those on the other side of the border. Today you
might question those statements in light of some of the negative
results such as the softwood lumber or the BSE crisis in cattle.
The Decline
Towards the end of the Mulroney years (1984-1993),
domestic issues began to occupy much of the Canadian government’s time
and resources. As calls for sovereignty grew in Quebec, the
Charlottetown Accord became the preoccupation; a national unity crisis
loomed. The Somalia peacekeeping mission debacle tarnished Canada’s
reputation and legitimacy as a neutral, even-handed, and effective
peacekeeper. As the 1990s began, Canada was already withdrawing from
the international scene in many fields.
Domestic issues marked the beginning of Jean
Chretien’s prime ministry (1993-2003) with national unity, the trade
and budget deficits, and growing Canadian cynicism with the federal
government marking his early years in office. In hindsight, Chretien
was viewed by many internationalists as unengaged and uninterested in
international affairs except perhaps as trade opportunities. As well,
noticing the backlash that Mulroney’s close relationship with
Presidents Reagan and the elder Bush, Chretien sought to distance
himself from the Clinton administration, which placed a good deal of
strain on the good relations that the two countries had previously
enjoyed.
In hindsight, Canada’s international reputation
declined during the Chretien years, except for the very important role
of Canada’s leadership in the drafting of the Landmine Treaty, against
which the Clinton administration was very much opposed. Foreign
Minister Lloyd Axworthy went outside the UN’s customary processes and
managed to have the treaty passed without the consent or support of
the world’s only superpower. A remarkable achievement!
But our foreign policy today is both overextended
and strategically directionless. Our country has reached a cross-road
and must decide what role we want to play in the world, or risk not
playing one at all. Although Canada has and continues to be a strong
champion of the human security agenda, many have begun to notice that
the rise in Canadian rhetoric in this area has coincided with a
reduction in political will and military commitment to do anything
about it. Moreover, in areas in which Canada has become militarily
engaged, it is perceived as having little or no impact. In other
words, by virtue of doing just enough to “show up”, we are pretty much
“everywhere and nowhere” at the same time. By virtue of our “on
paper” support of a human security and humanitarian development agenda
without committing the resources needed to achieve those ideals, we
have come to be seen as a country that likes to adopt high moral
standards, but only from a safe distance.
A Question of
Capabilities
A fundamental shift seems to have occurred in the
way in which Canada views the role of its military at home and in the
world. This is well summed up by Ignatieff’s argument that “There is
something very curious about the way the military spine that was a
part of the central national identity of our culture has just slipped
away, so that when you make a claim in defence of national defence and
military expenditure, you are ultimately regarded as some kind of
foaming-at-the-mouth warmonger.” Can anyone seriously disagree with
Ignatieff?
The capacity of the UN is weakened by a lack of
will or capacity from many governments to compel rogue states to
desist from malevolent actions. This reality is so overwhelming that
the multilateralism and international order that Canada espouses is
undermined. If the UN, already hobbled by the divergent interests of
the members of the Security Council, cannot get a country such as
Sudan to obey even limited objectives, then international law and the
potential for multilateral solutions are severely thwarted. If
Canadians truly believe that there is a place for international law
and cooperation among countries, we must put our money up and provide
leadership to back our belief in an international system with a force
and persistence that is capable of affective conflict resolution.
Canada is currently contributing less than 2% of
the troops engaged in sanctioned international security operations
(not including the Iraq engagement in these calculations) a shamefully
low level for a country that prides itself on being an international
leader in peacekeeping. What steps can Canada take to improve this
situation?
Recommendations
First, Canada needs to make a clearly defined
contribution to international security. There is a strong perception
that we could make a very important difference in international
security if it would focus its assets on a few key areas and stick
with them; what is commonly referred to as “niche diplomacy.” Opinions
from around the world have identified three areas in which there are
voids that need filling: an air mobile brigade with stand alone
capability, constabulary and security training, and post-conflict
reconstruction. Canada is seen as having a unique reputation in world
affairs suitable for involving itself in situations in which other key
international players might not be able to take on for historical
reasons.
Secondly, we need to improve the protection of
Canadian sovereignty and continental defence. A commitment needs to
be made to the Canadian military in resources and political support.
Furthermore, if we are to regain influence, we need to be seen as a
nation that is willing and ready to share the load. We must start to
demonstrate this by committing to doing its part when it comes to our
homeland and backyard. This would require the development of a strong
and capable coast guard, interdiction capabilities, and perhaps
controversially, increased cooperation in some areas with the United
States. Although increasing cooperation with the Bush administration
is unpopular in Canada, it is unrealistic for Canadians to believe
that it can enhance its well-being and influence by thumbing our nose
at the US every chance we get. If we are to benefit from our
relationship with our closest neighbour and the world’s only remaining
superpower, we must work with the Americans, for their security will
help us to ensure our own.
Third, Canada needs to review all of our military
assets and support operations to assess their relevance to 21st
century priorities. The disparity between Canada’s capabilities and
the realities of the age of terror is again, all too evident. After
World War II, we had a conventional, high-technology, full service
military that had been engaged in an international projection of force
as part of an alliance that successfully contained an aggressor that
posed an unprecedented threat to European and global security. The
threats to global security have changed in shape and substance; the
only way in which the Canadian Forces have changed is in its
deterioration. Canada is left with a depreciated conventional
military built to deal with a threat that no longer exists today while
present security needs have morphed and multiplied.
Walking the Walk
If we want to be seen as a legitimate supporter of
human rights and security, we must match our assets with our
attitudes; Canada can no longer maintain a credible global and human
security attitude without real human security assets. We can no
longer expect to lecture others in the world about doing good while
telling other how to do it without actually getting our own feet in
the water.
Although I have not enumerated our need also to
increase and smarten our international development assistance today,
this is an integrated topic of great importance which cannot be
overlooked. Canadians are known in villages around the world for their
grassroots projects. Atlantic Canadians have shown a significant
commitment of resources and people in this area.
One of the greatest strengths, which many in the
world, and indeed, many Canadians seem to underestimate, is that
Canada is loved by many and disliked by almost no one. The goodwill
which many peoples around the world seem to hold towards us is a vital
asset that we must nurture. Canada is seen by the rest of the world as
approachable and, if we devote the time and resources that are
necessary, we can live up to our reputation as a credible
multilateralist that is both willing and able to help when needed.
Conclusion
The general consensus abroad appears to be that
Canada’s performance on the world scene since 1989 is “punching well
below its weight” for a country of our wealth and history. Not only
has our performance fallen well below our high-minded posturing, it
has also fallen well below our historical performance and our own, and
the world’s expectations. Nothing indicates that this trend cannot be
reversed.
Canada’s economic position has
strengthened in recent years and the relative size of our economy has
grown. Other active international players, such as the Norwegians,
have also come onto the scene and carved out their own legacies of
humanitarian and peacekeeping work with whom we would do well to
collaborate. In spite of our under performance in the past decade, it
is not naïve to think that the world still believes that Canada can
make a difference. Indeed, the world needs, now more than ever, for
Canada to make a difference. With more resources, focus and
commitment, we can meet the expectations of our fellow Canadians and
regain our ability to impact peace and security for those who need
assistance.
Thank you.
-30-
