I welcome the opportunity to participate in a dialogue on Canada’s foreign policy. While the instructions on the website suggest beginning with the individual questions and then responding to the paper as a whole, I will reverse the order since I want to give an introductory framework to the specific responses that follow.
My overall impression of the Minister’s paper is much like that of the timid curate responding to his hostess’s query about his breakfast egg: parts of it are excellent! The description of foreign policy as ideally being Canadian domestic policy writ large is a very apt one, and I agree with the paper’s emphasis on values, human security issues, global interdependence, and poverty eradication.
But just as “excellent parts” cannot make a bad egg fresh, the inclusion of important and true insights and directions into a flawed policy cannot give it integrity and coherence. Let me explain.
In most foreign policy, including Canada’s, security used to be unproblematically equated with military security. We have progressed in this regard in recent years and decades, and have come to understand that we cannot have true security for any group at the cost of insecurity of another. We have also come to understand that weapons are not the only threats to our security, and that there are other real threats like poverty, human rights abuses and environmental problems. Another area of advancement is that of human security, the recognition that the security of citizens cannot be equated with state security, although the latter is an important aspect of the former.
Canada has historically played a leading role in developing an expanded notion of security, through our emphasis on multilateralism and internationalism, peacekeeping, the rule of law and an emphasis on human rights, soft power, and most recently, human security. The document contains several references to human security. It also includes elements of common security, the concept developed in the Palme commission report, that understands security as multifaceted and mutual. In fact the introductory paragraph, “ A Better Canada, a Better World” is a clear articulation of common security principles and I am very much in agreement that “doing what is right for others is most often in our own long-term interest”. The section on Canadian values is also very much in accordance with common security philosophy and principles.
The problem is that while the paper clearly goes beyond a purely military security model, it does not reject it outright, but seeks to include it alongside elements of a human security and a common security model. There is no acknowledgement that these divergent ways of looking at security have very different assumptions and concepts. It also does not recognize that measures purported to increase security in a purely military model, like military approaches to terrorism and unquestioned support for powerful allies and alliances, actually work to undermine real security needs, both locally and internationally. While the document mentions the need for arms control and disarmament, it does not explore the risks to proliferation posed by the National Missile Defense and the weaponization of space. Recent remarks by various government ministers supporting Canadian participation in NMD is very troubling. This program threatens the intricate system of arms control agreements we have built up so painstakingly and also undermines Canadian sovereignty. The paper also does not question the effect of manufacturing and exporting arms and of Canada’s participation in international “trade” agreements. In consequence, then, the paper lacks overall coherence and parts of it are contradictory.
There is no mention of the “culture of peace” in the paper, even though Canada has adopted international resolutions calling for action (e.g. UN General Assembly Resolution A/53/243) and this is the UN Decade of Peace and Nonviolence for the Children of the World. There are elements of the culture of peace in the paper, and indeed in Canadian values, but relative to Canadian government commitment to military spending, the commitment to dismantle the culture of war and build a culture of peace is miniscule. The paper does not mention the need to begin the long process toward developing a peace consciousness, for example through education, and creating opportunities for youth to learn the skills and capacities. (I would like to mention the important work of Sen. Doug Roche as a long-time proponent of the culture of peace). From the perspective of a culture of peace, peace is not an initiative but an outcome of a particular way of ordering society, and of attitudes, values and behaviours.
In short, what is needed is a true appreciation of the implications of common security and a culture of peace and the ways these could provide a coherent conceptual framework for Canadian foreign policy.
I will now respond to the discussion questions.
Questions for Discussion from the Dialogue Paper
The 1995 Policy Review and Since
1. Which values and interests should bear most fundamentally on Canada's foreign policy? How can Canada's foreign policy better reflect the concerns and priorities of Canadians?
The values mentioned in the document are still appropriate to Canada’s foreign policy. These include respect for diversity, tolerance, human rights etc. I see values as being of primary importance, so that we should not make policy decisions that are not in accordance with our values. A true understanding of the concepts of common security and a culture of peace indicate that there is no discord between our values and our interests, and that what will truly make us secure is a more just, fair and sustainable world. These principles are alluded to in the opening paragraph, “A Better Canada, a Better World”, but much more needs to be done to make them the cornerstones of Canadian foreign policy. Another value that is of critical importance is that of Canadian sovereignty and there are several Canadian policy directions that have undermined our sovereignty and our ability to make our own decisions.
2. Amid recent global changes, should Canada continue to endorse a "three pillars" approach to its foreign policy objectives, or should the current balance be adjusted?
I would see an integrated framework with values as primary as making more sense than the “three pillars” approach, especially when some parts of the policy as outlined in the paper are contradictory. Having said this, I think the three interrelated aims the pillars represent are good ones, but in the discussion that follows, elements that may contradict the pillars occur. The Canada-US relationship is complicated, and there is no indication in the discussion as to how our policy should be determined when the US acts in ways that are not conducive to Canadian values and a stable global framework. Similarly, our involvement in international so-called trade deals has threatened Canadian values, global security and prosperity, especially in an equitable way. Our foreign policy needs more coherence.
3. Canada is a member of many international organizations, including the G8, NATO, the Commonwealth, La Francophonie, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC), the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Arctic Council. Should our participation in any of these be strengthened, or adjusted?
I see Canada’s participation in the UN and its agencies as vital, even thought these institutions are somewhat flawed. Much more work needs to be done on the implementation of all the declarations, plans of actions etc. Part of Canada’s work should be on helping to democratize the UN and allow for much fuller citizen participation. I would also like to see more work on implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325- including more women in peacebuilding. And I see the UNESCO Culture of peace project as very important. In addition, Canada should continue its work with the International Criminal Court. I would like to see less emphasis on Canada’s role as purely military, and also looking at where our participation in alliances like NATO contradicts our values and interests e.g. with regard to NATO’s nuclear first use policy which has been criticized by the World Court as a crime against humanity.
Security
4. In promoting the security of Canadians, where should our priorities lie? Should Canada give a higher priority to military combat operations? To sectors such as intelligence gathering and analysis? Or should we focus on broader security measures, such as combatting environmental degradation and the spread of infectious disease? What should be our distinctive role in promoting global security?
The most important issue is defining what it is we mean by security and not simply equating military security with security. While the document talks about non-military aspects of security, it does not recognize that militarism is actually a threat to security in many ways. This, again, is part of the many fine international studies, including the Palme commission report on Common Security, the North-South work of the Brandt commission, and Gro Harlem Brundtland’s commission on Sustainable Development. We should adopt a common security approach not a military security one.
5. How does the military best serve Canada's foreign policy objectives: though national and continental defence; combat missions in support of international coalitions; peacekeeping; all of the above?
Following the previous answer, the military is not necessarily the best or the only institution to serve Canada’s foreign policy objectives. There is a need to develop non-military alternatives, for example civilian defence, supporting the Global Nonviolent Peace force, developing a non-military alternative to the cadets. There is a continuing and transitional role for the military, and I would like to see a continued focus on peacekeeping, support for rebuilding, safeguarding communities in times of transition etc.
6. Should Canada do more to address conditions giving rise to conflict and insecurity beyond our borders? If so, where?
Yes. We have committed to doing this through our support of many international declarations and statements, including the Culture of Peace programme for action, and we need to live up to our commitments. There are many ways Canada can act to address the root causes of violent conflict and insecurity, and it is also important that Canada refrain from doing things that promote insecurity like exporting arms to countries in conflict and getting involved in the missile defense initiative.
I will omit answers to the 3 questions under the Prosperity heading due to lack of time.
Values and Culture
10. Are values such as human rights, democracy, respect for diversity and gender equality ones that Canada should continue to advocate in all parts of the world? If so, what are the best ways of doing this?
Yes. It is important to model these values in our domestic policy and make sure they underpin all our foreign policy decisions.
11. Should Canada seek out opportunities for fostering global intercultural dialogue and interfaith understanding?
Yes, and it is important that these efforts are not just goverenment to government but also invovle civilians. The role of women is of particular importance, as is an emphasis on youth. And there needs to be much more education on these issues here in Canada.
12. What are the best means for Canada to make its culture and experience known abroad?
I suppport many of the initiaves outlined in this section. I would like to see more mutuality of exchanges, for example Canadian students going abroad to learn from other countires, so that there is not just one direction. Canaada should also be aware of signing “trade” agreemetns that limit our ability to preserve and promote our culture. |
