Still Hazy After All These Years

It took until the latter half of 2010 for the weaknesses of the Conservative government's new foreign policy to come home to roost. I was in the crowd on Canada Day in front of the Peace Tower three years ago when the Prime Minister stated that "Canada is back" on the world stage as a result of his policies. In reality, it was too early into his tenure to know if that actually held true or not.The Conservative government desired to display a far tougher approach to world affairs than the more complex, multi-lateral internationalism former Liberal governments had pursued. For that matter, it also cut against the grain of the engaged diplomacy of the Mulroney era. Stephen Harper's primary vehicle for that expression in his early days was the conflict in Afghanistan - a natural stage for a "tough guy" kind of international engagement.But following almost five years in power, the muscular era, and Canadian foreign policy with it, has declined in ways our foreign partners repeatedly describe as confusing. It mainly didn't work for George W. Bush or Tony Blair, and it appears to be failing the litmus test for credible foreign policy for Canada as well.This past year witnessed the unravelling of the new Canada "aggressive" approach. It would be true to say that this country's involvement in Afghanistan through NATO has buffed up our military reputation in international circles. But the conflict itself failed to provide the clear-cut victory such an approach required if it were to prevail decades into the future. Both British and American administrations learned this at their peril. Even the attempt to exit that war-torn region sees Canada spending five times more money on military activities than on either diplomacy or development. Some of us are attempting to amend that ratio in favour of more humanitarianism in our morphed presence there, but it remains a difficult climb.Afghanistan has taught us a kind of humility that once used to characterize Canada's presence in the world in previous times. We have learned, as Pearson and Mulroney always stated, that military might can never win the day in an increasingly complex world. The need to enter the Afghanistan arena was a necessary step in being part of a United Nations partnership, but it failed to provide the outcome hoped for. We took little imagination into the region's diplomatic realities.Haiti is another case in point. When the earthquake initially struck that impoverished land, Canada was all over it with military, humanitarian and diplomatic assistance. Since that time, however, the problems have become intractable, and once again flexing our military muscle in those early days benefitted us little, and the quick exit of our military peacetime resources during the next stages of building Haiti itself only added to the problem.During the latter part of this year, the weaknesses of the Harper approach began to multiply, best seen in our loss of the Security Council seat. Years from now, our inability to use diplomatic clout to acquire that privileged seat will be viewed as one of the lowest points in Canadian international prestige. Additionally, the Harper government's approach in the Middle East of crossing the delicate line from soft power broker to outright support for Israel has damaged our diplomatic reputation more than is realized. We once could be counted on to express our complex foreign policy in the very restraint with which we refused to consistently pick a side in perhaps the most complex part of the world - but no more.The F-35 fighter jet problem, the travesty that is Canadian environmental policy, our abandonment of Africa, the shutting down of embassies - these developments, among numerous others, constitute the reasons why Canada lost a privileged place on the Security Council and why a number of countries are fighting the proposed European Free Trade agreement with this country.Following five years of the aggressive approach, it is becoming clear that the Harper foreign policy has not only damaged the Canadian image but has also proved irrelevant in an increasingly complex world. As former PM Joe Clark repeatedly states, the world is getting bigger and this country will have to nuance its formerly impressive diplomatic, trade, and humanitarian skills if it is to maintain its place in world esteem. So far, as he states, we have failed.So where to now? It is just another affirmation of the weakness of our present foreign policy that we don't have an answer to that question. To where will we shift our troop presence? Will we develop and effective international climate change presence? Can we overcome our present limitations in our relationships with China and India? Will we continue the present policy of freezing development assistance despite the blow to our reputation that ensued? Being out of touch with in all of these areas has produced a Canada the world no longer recognizes. It is an experiment gone wrong because it took a simplistic and muscular approach into a context that was largely about complexity and nuance.We are now no farther ahead than five years ago. Our international presence is murkier than ever. Our foreign policy has become one of befuddlement - the exact opposite of the active and defined Canada Stephen Harper boasted of.