The Pearson Centre for Progressive Policy

Progressive Dialogue and Policy for a Better Canada

We need to re-set foreign policy, Sergio Marchi

By

We need to re-set foreign policy, Sergio Marchi

  • Date: September 30, 2014, 8:00 am to
  • For more information:

Marchi to speak on Diplomacy and on Foreign Policy (Oct. 7 and Oct. 9 )

The Honourable Sergio Marchi, Former Minister of International Trade and Canadian Ambassador to the WTO, spoke on “Style and Substance: Reflections on Canadian Diplomacy” at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, and on “Canada’s Foreign Policy: The Case for Rest” at the Centre for International Policy Studies at the University of Ottawa.

The two speeches were delivered on:
October 7, U of Toronto
http://webapp.mcis.utoronto.ca/EventDetails.aspx?eventid=16801
and
October 9, U of Ottawa
http://cips.uottawa.ca/event/canadas-foreign-policy-the-case-for-reset/

The speech is here:
A Lecture by
Hon. Sergio Marchi
Centre for International Policy Studies and
the Faculty of Law
The University of Ottawa
Ottawa
October 9, 2014
Canada’s Foreign Policy:
The Case for Re-set

Introduction
I would like to thank Allan Rock for his kind invite to address you today. I would also like to recognize the work of Isabelle Kirsch, who behind the scenes, has pulled this event together. It’s great to be back in Ottawa, and on your campus.
We are all familiar with the truism that ‘all politics are local’. It’s all about the immediate-what-have-you-done-for-me-lately syndrome. As such, international issues have barely registered a pulse during national election campaigns in Canada.
In a world which is getting smaller and more independent by the hour, this presents us with a significant and worrying dysfunction. After all, a single economic or political action is one corner of the world, can quickly send shock waves across the global village, compelling people, businesses, civil society, and governments to react accordingly.
Yet, despite the global tie-in, foreign policy does not come close to winning or losing elections in Canada — and I think they should. Perhaps the Government’s decision to join the coalition against ISIS will change that.
At the very time when leaders are confronted by an onslaught of global challenges, and as they seek more efficient forms of global governance, foreign policy issues and implications must be part of the national discourse when it comes to electing our political representatives.
Furthermore, in next year’s federal election, I believe Canadians will be faced with a very clear foreign policy choices: our fellow citizens could continue with four more years of the current doctrine, or opt for a more familiar and traditional path.
From Where I Stand
When I bump into old Ambassadorial colleagues in Geneva, or attend dinners with their visiting Presidents and Ministers, they usually ask two questions in relation to Canada.
First up is, “what is going on with your Toronto Mayor”?!
3
And the second is, “what is happening with your country’s foreign policy?”
My standard response to the Rob Ford phenomenon is to plead complete dismay and embarrassment, while on the second inquiry, I try to offer their curiosity some context.
Their question about our foreign policy implies that we have taken a different path. And after a little chatter, they overwhelmingly take polite exception with what strikes them as a relatively extreme, isolationist trajectory for Canada.
It is unfamiliar to them. This is not what they have known and relied upon.
Moreover, I am of the view that our current policy has made Canada less of a player on the international stage. It’s not that our PM does not ‘feel’ the global issues. But it is the approach he takes to them that has changed, and people have clearly noticed.
Harper deserves credit, for example, on the trade policy front, where he has initiated and negotiated free trade agreements with the EU and Korea. But why not rally other causes, peoples and governments in a similar vein?
Instead, our federal government has chartered a course that is intentionally and markedly different from those of preceding Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments. That is their choice of course. And there is nothing sinister about opting for change. None whatsoever.
The relevant question is, does this new course work in the interests of Canada, and of the international community?
This is the issue I would like to address with you.
The Canadian Legacy
If our friends are unsettled with our recent foreign policy leanings, what is it exactly that they miss? In other words, what was our legacy?
From my standpoint, our foreign policy rested on 4 main pillars.
4
First and foremost, Canada used to firmly believe in multilateralism.
We saw the multilateral arena as an effective vehicle for dealing with global tensions. As a middle power, we engaged others in the hopes of finding common ground on issues that pitted people, countries and regions against one another. Accordingly, we were viewed as an ‘honest-broker’, as a country that could be trusted to advance the dialogue with balance and fairness.
I thought we were ideally suited for such a role, and took full advantage of it.
Canada was never colonial in its history and outlook. We were seen as a country without much ‘baggage’. We never led with lectures, and were always modest in our comportment. We were seen as fair, and prepared to listen to reasoned arguments. We were a developed nation with an affinity for the plight of developing societies, and had earned their respect.
True enough, we were not the indispensable nation and we were smart enough to know this.
Instead, we sought to be the ‘value added’ nation.
As well, in our own national interest — which one cannot divorce from foreign policy — this reputation bought us much leverage, politically and economically.
Our current Government, however, has pursued a very different form of diplomacy. They promote messages that seem to be rooted in different core values. They also have a regular habit of chastising people and institutions from the bully pulpit.
For example, when the PM does go before the UN, except for his most recent visit, he never misses an opportunity to belittle and humiliate the UN. Why is that? What is the end game? And how does this advance Canadian interests? It’s as if our government believes that working through international institutions like the U.N., is a sign of weakness. I think they’re wrong.
5
To be sure, the UN is far from perfect. It cries out for reform, greater transparency and enhanced efficiency. But, as Churchill famously contextualized democracy in relation to other systems, what is the alternative?
How else are we to deal with world problems?
Without a forum where the family of nations are all present and equal, would any other option be seen as viable and legitimate?
Should we go back to days of the Wild West, when the big bullied the small, and where the powerful dictated the agenda?
If we did, that would obviously work against our own ambitions as a middle power, as it would for the vast majority of other countries.
Rather than taking cheap shots, we should be trying to strengthen the UN and its governance. Our government should spend political capital and energies in building up the institution, rather than giving speeches that tear the UN down.
Joe Clark, a former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, in his recent book, “How we Lead: Canada in a Century of Change”, describes Harper’s approach as: “a megaphone” approach — in other words, plenty of loud grandstanding and not much constructive work on the ground.”
There is a time to get on the soapbox — but not all the time!
To make matters worse, the Harper regime seems to think that ‘compromise’ and ‘consensus’ are dirty words; concepts to be avoided at all costs.
And yet, successful diplomacy is built on the principle of compromise as a means to an end. The thrust of give-and-take is the very lifeblood of international negotiations and relations. It is the process through which rapprochement and consensus is achieved.
6
During my time as Ambassador in Geneva, the Director General of the WTO, or other Heads of UN Agencies, would regularly reach out to Canada for its assistance in trying to build agreement. We would be asked to reformulate a contentious paragraph. Or, be requested to confer with a country representative in an attempt to have them come around? Or, be placed on the list of speakers, without our asking, in order to make a timely intervention during a critical moment in the debate.
They did so because they valued and trusted Canada’s judgment, and thought that our leadership could help convince others. And because compromise is the essence of building agreement among contentious positions.
Another significant example of our changed international approach concerns the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In the past, on this highly delicate issue, Canada’s position was predicated on a balanced engagement, and genuine respect for both parties to the dispute. We recognized Israel as a friend, and as a people deserving of secure and defined borders. At the same time, we sought and believed in a better, more prosperous future for the Palestinian people, where they could live in an independent State that they could call ‘home’.
Today, our policy is one sided. Consistently, Harper grants Israel a blank cheque, while the Palestinians get the back of his hand.
In a speech to the American Jewish Congress in Washington, last May, his Foreign Affairs Minister said:
“The days are gone when Canada’s foreign policy was defined simply by taking the middle path, by testing the temperature of those around the table, and landing somewhere not too hot, not too cold.”
Regrettably, Baird either mischaracterizes or misunderstands those days.
Common ground was not found through a mere flip of a coin, or by simply splitting the difference. It was attained by hard, dedicated work: earning the respect from and having trust in, both parties; by taking the time to understand their respective positions; by developing creative options; by seeking incremental movement; and by repeating this process over and over, all in an effort to bridge differences and reach an understanding.
7
In fact, this was the basis of my work as Ambassador to the WTO and UN in Geneva. In my five years there, we never once voted. That is because developed and developing countries could never agree to a voting formula. The former would never accept a one country-one vote model, because they were (and still are) badly outnumbered. And the latter, would never agree to weighted votes, because then they would be on the losing end.
This was certainly frustrating at times, but that was the reality. Our work was all about building consensus, one country and one concentric circle at a time. If you didn’t achieve consensus, there was no agreement and no movement. It was that simple. And nothing has changed since then.
But the ‘payoff’ is that, when a careful and sustained consensus is reached, it had international buy-in and immediate global impact.
Any objective observer, interested in lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians — or between any other two peoples — would conclude that a one-sided policy is doomed to fail. It will never facilitate peace.
As a dependable friend, we owe the people of Israel our candor when it comes to their long terms interests, rather than blindly being a rubber stamp for their political leaders. And as it concerns the Palestinian people, they need to know that Hamas terrorist attacks are not the solution.
But both parties must be dealt with respect and dignity, if they are to one day find common ground.
Above all, our foreign policy must be a policy that offers hope. Hope, that one day Israeli families could sleep well at night, without fearing the potential of incoming missiles. And hope, that one day Palestinian youth will be in schools and starting their own businesses, rather than throwing stones and rocks at Israeli soldiers!
Like many of you, during my entire lifetime, the relations between Israel and Palestinians has been one, long bad “movie”. The last thing we need is a never-ending sequel!
Second, we used to believe in vigorous international engagement.
It was a rather simple calculation.
8
We assumed that by fully engaging and involving all the relevant partners and by considering all their respective views, one could best understand the problem at hand, and that this was the first, indispensable step towards finding a workable and lasting solution. Then, through continued engagement, constructive ideas and options would emerge.
Yes, this route took more time, energy and patience, but it produced better and more sustainable outcomes.
We tried to avoid isolating people or countries, as that only breeds more tensions and misunderstandings. Plus, when a party is pushed into a corner and feel they have nothing to lose, that is when they are at their most dangerous, and that is when the circumstances become explosive.
Successful diplomacy means that we cannot be indifferent to people and their histories. We must work with them, regardless of the differences between us.
This explains the rationale behind our long standing policy on Cuba. Or, why Canada was one the first western nations to recognize China diplomatically.
Here again, our government today seems to enjoy swimming against this current.
When it comes to Iran, for example, our PM’s preference is to give highly charged ideological lectures to his counterparts. He also closed our Embassy in Tehran. Now, I fully recognize that we have legitimate differences with Iran’s government, and that these issues are complex. However, all the more reason to stay engaged.
How else are we going to bridge differences? We can’t delegate that task to others.
And more selfishly, as it regards Iran, if the nuclear negotiations succeed in November — as many officials and experts on both sides believe it will —and this opens a new era of openness and reform for the country, how do we position and advance our own national economic interests in helping to rebuilding their country? And how do we further people to people contact without engagement?
Given that emerging economies have exploded onto the scene and are the current locomotive for the global economy, we must also think along economic and commercial lines.
9
If the politics go well, who knows, Iran could be the next BRIC country.
Globally, the emerging middle class is growing significantly, and the future projections are staggering. It is expected to double in size by 2035, to some 5 billion people. For the first time in history, by 2022, more people will be in the middle class than poor. Besides offering gigantic opportunities, the growth of the middle class is good news for our globe.
One day, hopefully soon, Iran can be part of this trend.
It also means that will need to take managed risks.
As a former Trade Minister, I was always impressed with the caliber of our exporters. However, I would also encounter risk-adverse Canadian corporations avoid developing markets, while firms from Asia and Europe would rush to fill the vacuum. Our companies should of course be prudent, but they and our country cannot afford to look away from such opportunities.
Our firms also require the active political support of our federal government. In markets where governments can and do make a notable difference between competing firms winning or losing contracts, Canadian businesses need the national government in their corner.
Thus, strategic economic thinking and initiatives should be at the heart of our foreign policy considerations, including in Iran.
Sadly, our current course serves only to have Iran harden its position. It also guarantees that Canada will not have a voice. And when it comes to future business opportunities, our companies will start from a disadvantage in relation to resuming trade and investment with a country whose population of 80 million desperately want and require massive investments from the West.
And make no mistake, that time is coming. I was in Tehran several weeks ago, for the first time, and their people long for a re-engagement with the West, including Canada. But as one person told me, “Canada has closed its window into Iran”
10
Our allies have taken a different road. President Obama has the same concerns as we do, but he has kept an open door with the Iranian government. Same thing with the EU, who are astutely nurturing its relationship with Iran’s new President.
Even the British PM, who closed their Embassy some two years ago, has seen the error of his ways. He recently announced the re-opening of their Mission in Tehran, and last month he met with the President of Iran for the first time since the Iranian revolution of 1979.
Canada should follow suit. A similar orthodoxy was at play when Harper opted to boycott the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka, over that country’s human-rights record.
Ditto with Harper’s treatment of Putin.
The Russian President is clearly guilty of an illegal, and dangerous over-reach in Ukraine; one that already caused untold problems and bloodshed. There can be no disagreement on this.
But, as much as we are offended by Putin’s irresponsible actions, what does it serve to cut off our links with him, as we have done? How does isolating him contribute to bringing Putin back to his senses?
Again, despite huge differences, US, German, French, and Italian leaders, to name of few, have strived to keep their channels with their Russian counterpart open.
Some would call me naïve.
But I believe in confronting and engaging your protagonist; keeping them close, where you can see them and talk to them.
By the way, this is also a cardinal rule of local, retail politics. However, Harper seems to also have a different approach domestically.
Jeffrey Simpson, the celebrated columnist for the Globe and Mail, captured this well, when he wrote:
11
“By identifying enemies or hostile institutions, or by picking fights with individuals or institutions, Mr. Harper can better galvanize his supporters. The idea of appealing to as many people as possible in the search for maximizing votes is not how he governs. Instead, he looks to his party’s core vote, tries to energize it as often as possible, then finds slices of the electorate to add to the core”.
In a similar way, when Harper first came to power, confrontation was also his preferred choice for dealing with China.
He questioned them publicly, and chose not to build a rapport with China’s Premier and President.
He also initially refused to cooperate with the Canada China Business Council (CCBC), which is our country’s leading private sector entity for furthering trade and investment between our two peoples and countries.
I know. I was CCBC President at the time.
And what did he achieve through this approach?
Not only did this path fail to persuade China to change its ways on the irritations raised by our PM, but in the end, we were not seen as a reliable partner. It gives us less sway with them; there is mistrust; and Canadian businesses, for one, have unfortunately paid the price.
The moral of this story is not to be indifferent to our legitimate concerns with China. On the contrary. Harper has every right and obligation to raise sensitive matters, and articulate a difference of opinion. However, he needs to address these matters in a way that is constructive and ultimately, successful.
Whenever I was in China with Prime Minister Chretien, for instance, the delicate matter of human rights was a regular item on the bilateral agenda. He would never miss an opportunity to raise these concerns, but he would do so in a respectful manner. And that is the only form of diplomacy that moves the Chinese. We resolved files and deepened the relationship at the same time.
Having them lose face in public is clearly not the way to go.
12
Only more recently has Harper realized this, and I applaud him for this. He has been back peddling, on account of our significant economic and commercial interests with the Asian giant. But frankly, I think the Chinese will never be able to openly trust him, so the damage lingers.
Third, past governments sought out the creative energies and expertize of career diplomats, representatives of civil society, and Opposition Parties.
No government can develop effective and ongoing public policy without a true partnership with their civil servants. Political leaders are always in search of better ideas and more options. They also need honest policy assessments and analysis.
In turn, the political masters must support and express confidence in their bureaucrats, since loyalty and the art of governing is a two way street.
I recall my very first Cabinet meeting. Following the swearing in of the new government in 1993, we had a Cabinet meeting that very afternoon. It was a quick affair. There were just 3 issues on the agenda, and it was more of an opportunity for Prime Minister Chretien to highlight the ‘do’s and don’ts of his administration. I found these ‘marching orders’ most helpful, especially if you wanted to stay in Cabinet for the long haul!
One of these items was his directive to work closely with our deputies and senior officials. He talked about them as “partners” for developing better ideas and policies. He also said that they would be instrumental in helping us become successful Ministers and that in return, strong Ministers consolidated the position and prestige of their officials around Ottawa.
In other words, he wanted and directed us to closely collaborate with them, and build a real, trusting partnership. Towards this end, and to force our hand, he cut our budget for the hiring of political staff.
It was a lesson that stayed with me throughout my years in Cabinet, and it proved to be absolutely true.
Contrast that with the Harper school of public service.
13
His is more a “command and control” approach. Our Ambassadors, for example, cannot address a public audience without their remarks first being approved by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and then by the Prime Minister’s Office.
Imagine.
Talk about handcuffing our diplomatic troops, whose job it is to promote and defend Canadian interests, around the world, at all times and in real time.
When I approached one of my successors to the WTO and asked him how we worked by this rule, he flatly said:
“I just don’t accept any more commitments for public speeches. Period”.
He explained that on one occasion, hours before he was to address a conference, he received an email from the PMO denying clearance of his speech. He was compelled to cancel his appearance, and he was so embarrassed, that he vowed never to risk a repeat performance.
When I asked another Ambassador who had served in Asia, he had a different recipe. He carefully tailored his first speech to ensure the necessary approval and thereafter submitted similar texts, only to deliver a different message. Which was fine, as long as the PMO did not find out!
We need to take a page from Hilary Clinton’s definition of “21st Century Statecraft”. In her book, Hard Choices, she writes:
“I encouraged our diplomats to develop their own Facebook pages and Twitter accounts, to go on local TV, and to engage in every other way they could. Just as important, I wanted them to listen to what people in their countries were saying, including on social media.”
I constantly hear from senior mandarins that the government applies a similar methodology to public servants in Ottawa. Officials now are compelled to work under a rigid, micro-management PMO style of governance. Not only does this make for a rather unpleasant environment but in the process, many bureaucrats have become risk adverse.
14
Instead of being paid to think creatively, they now keep their heads down; rather than offer a spectrum of policy options, they try to provide what their political masters want to see and hear.
Regrettably, this results in a deficit of ideas and perspectives, which only reinforces an inward, more ideological approach.
When I talk to Civil Society leaders, it’s a similar story. They tell me that our government does not treat them as genuine partners. That they are not valued for their expertise and influence, nationally and internationally. That’s a sad indictment. Of course, governments and NGO’s will never agree on all matters. That’s just the way it is. But as governments ponder decisions, in order to make policies as inclusive and effective as possible, they must include input from civil society. Furthermore, it is also ironic, since information technology has put more power, once reserved exclusively for states, into the hands of individuals and ngo’s. Therefore, ignoring civil society only lessen Canada’s international reach.
The same is true for the government’s relationship with Opposition MP’s.
Why did the PM, for example, exclude them when a government delegation visited Ukraine, in regards to the crisis created by Russian President Putin? Why be overly partisan in conducting international affairs and supporting an ally in need, when traditionally, you leave domestic politics at home?
I suppose the PM sees no difference. He operates in one gear. But international diplomacy demands much more sophistication.
Finally, we used to think big.
In all modesty, we were good at public diplomacy.
We were serious in weighing all sides of an issue. We were fair and balanced. We brought people together. We would come up with novel ideas. We would talk the ‘lingua franca’. And we tried to think big.
15
In return, we received respect from allies and the international community at large. We also leveraged this ‘soft’ power politically and economically.
Think about some of Canada’s past, major diplomatic accomplishments;  Prime Minister Diefenbaker brought Canada into NORAD, and refused US demands to stop shipping wheat to the Chinese, who were in desperate need of food in the early 1960’s. – He also refused America’s request that we isolate Cuba. – At the 1961 Commonwealth conference, he was the only white leader to object to South African membership, on account of their apartheid system
 Prime Minister Pearson was our country’s foremost diplomat of the 1950’s and ‘60’s, and received the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in the Suez crisis – In 1945, he represented Canada at the founding conference of the UN, and his efforts were critical in us joining NATO in 1949 – The UN Emergency Force was his creation, and Pearson is considered the father of the modern concept of peacekeeping.
 Prime Minister Trudeau was one of Canada’s best ‘salesmen’. He helped deepen Canada’s footprint in the world, and was regarded as a leading statesmen. – He was ahead of his times when he was one of the first western Leaders to recognize China, including beating Nixon to the punch. – When Mr. Trudeau passed away I was still Ambassador in Geneva. As is the custom, we invited the diplomatic community to sign an official condolence book that was placed inside our Embassy’s reception area. Well, I cannot tell you how many Ambassadors insisted on seeing me when they came, because they wanted to relay a personal story of what our former PM meant to them and to their country. I knew Mr.
16
Trudeau had a far reach, but after listening to these accounts, that influence was much more profound that I could have ever imagined.
 Prime Minister Mulroney, despite being political soul mates of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, fought both of them tooth and nail in relation to their positions on South Africa’s system of Apartheid. And he placed his political and diplomatic efforts behind the National African Congress’ quest for freedom and equality. – Mulroney’s leadership was so instrumental that when Nelson Mandela was a free man, one of his first foreign trips was to Canada, to pay his personal thanks and appreciation to Mulroney and Canada. – I fondly recall, years later, during my Ambassadorship in Geneva, when visiting South African diplomats and politicians would recount with praise, the role played by Brian Mulroney, and they would ask me to relay their thanks to him (which I did). I was proud to be the recipient of such heart-felt thanks.
– Mulroney also used diplomacy to good effect when it came to advancing environment policy, free trade with US, bringing Canada back into the OAS, and the creation of the Francophone Summit.
 Prime Minister Chretien had the courage and presence of mind to say “no” to President Bush, when he pushed hard for Canada to join his invasion of Iraq. – Indeed, Jean tells me that wherever he travels, the first question he is asked is how he found the courage to hold his own with our neighbor, ally, largest trading partner, and super-power friend – Under Mr. Chretien, Canada also took the leadership in creating the International Landmine Convention, the International Court of Justice, the global ‘Responsibility to Protect’ principal, as well as signing the Kyoto Protocol.
 PM Martin promoted the expansion of the G8 into a larger group of 20 nations, and forged a deeper rapport with China by announcing a “strategic partnership with President Hu in 2005.
17
None of these acts of leadership by Canada and her leaders were small. Nor were they easy. Indeed, they were gutsy and thoughtful. When you connect these individual diplomatic dots, they paint a very different portrait from the canvass of late. Indeed, they speak to another era. Talking of different eras, last month, on the 30th anniversary of his election as Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney spent a few moments reflecting on Harper’s foreign policy stance. He noted that: “…the government’s foreign policy has to be enveloped in a broader and more generous sweep that takes in Canadian traditions and Canadian history in a much more viable way”. This is also recognized by foreign leaders and experts alike. When US President Clinton addressed a joint sitting of the Canadian Parliament in 1995, he saluted our country for its role on the world stage. He said: “We know that for Canada, the history of action is a matter of deep tradition and personal conviction. It says we must be engaged in the affairs of the world. You have always shown the wisdom of reaching out instead of retreating, of rising to new responsibilities instead of retrenching. Your tradition of engagement continues to this day, and believe you me, it earns respect all around the world from people of all races and ethnic groups and political systems”. Quite the testimonial. But, if he were candid, I wonder what Clinton would say today?
In Closing
In closing, as that great US philosopher, boxer Mike Tyson, once said:
“Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the face!”
18
The same holds true in the arena of international affairs.
Global events are coming at us fast. They are a constant and unpredictable.
They are often disorderly and can quickly spin out of control.
They can create panic and instability.
They can hurt, kill, and injure people.
Economies can be disrupted locally and globally.
And most of the crises are interwoven in a web of competing forces of history, emotions, and interests.
They severely test our resolve.
The world is still a fragile place, despite a multitude of economic, social, and technological advances. On most days, the ‘news’ is a depressing ritual, as nasty events come at us quicker than we can process them.
I suspect the future will be no different.
Global economic challenges; divides between north and south; growing gaps between have and have-nots; tensions over nuclear weapons and terrorism; religious fanaticism ; a weakening America; military conflicts; failed states; climate change; shortages of food and water; outbreak of diseases…..
The list goes on.
Having a sound foreign policy framework is a must, if our country and global village are to react swiftly, effectively, and credibly to looming threats.
Cooperation and collaboration must be the rule, as is building trust and respect between peoples. We Canadians cannot ignore what happens beyond our borders. We need to reflect about our nation’s position in the world;
 What do we want to bring to the table?
 What is our value-added role?
19
 What are the values we wish to export?
 How should our elected representatives lead on the international stage?
 How can we be a platform for dialogue and engagement between nations and peoples?
After all, it matters greatly how we treat the world, and what the world thinks of Canada. The two are inseparable, and they influence our ambitions and reach as a nation.
Of course, Canadian diplomacy is also about hard economic self-interest. It’s the same for all other nations. Always has been, and always will.
However, that does not mean that those economic variables should be divorced from the other facets of our international diplomacy. In this regard, a distinguished former Canadian Ambassador, Jeremy Kinsman, captured this well when he recently wrote:
“…economic diplomacy is nourished by influence, by our international standing earned from our primacy on international issues of peace, security and governance other governments care about. The adult reality is that Canada abroad has to represent and operate on a composite policy level of economic interest; creative multilateralism and community citizenship; and consistency in values.”
Finally, Canadians, like people everywhere, must also guard against the notion that when it comes to global affairs, politicians are all the same.
They are not.
I fully appreciate the public cynicism that prevails. I sometimes find myself slipping into that mode.
But political leadership does vary and it does matter.
20
If you don’t believe that, try to convince US moms and dads, who lost sons and daughters in Iraq, that had Bush lost to Al Gore, things would have been the same.
Or, what if someone other than Jean Chretien had been sitting across from George W, when in their one-on-one meeting about the impending Iraq invasion, the US President asked pointedly, “are you with me or against me”?
Or, what if Brian Mulroney had quietly acquiesced to Thatcher and Reagan on the matter of apartheid in South Africa?
Policies matter a great deal.
But so do personalities.
People of strength, experience and vision can and do make a difference in the world.
I hope we can keep this in mind when reflecting on the world around us.
I also hope that international affairs will be a pivotal issue in next year’s election. And that Canadians provide their leaders with a compass for navigating these choppy global waters.
At the very least, very different policy approaches and personalities will be on public display during the campaign, for Canadians to judge. In this regard, there will be no ambiguity.
Thanks for your attention.
The Hon. Sergio Marchi is the Principal of the Marchi Group, a global strategies consultancy based in Geneva. He formerly served as a Canadian Member of Parliament, Minister, and Ambassador.

Related Content

Filed Under: Uncategorized