Foreign policy — can it truly be democratically developed, or is this an area of policy that the government must create on its own? After the Cold War, and since 1993, the Canadian government has started a process of consulting with citizens to develop a foreign policy strategy, one that is reflective of citizens’ interests and reflects the multicultural character of Canadian society. In that same timeframe, however, Canada’s position on the world stage has diminished. We are no longer the international player that we once were. Are these two facts related?
Foreign policy has not been a subject of traditional concern to the citizens of Canada, and rarely is it an issue of debate on the ‘hustings’. If it does not affect our daily lives directly, we are not concerned with it. The changing face of Canada, however, has brought home many issues from around the globe. But can, or should, the government cater to these concerns? You see, democracy by its very nature, is about providing for one’s self-interest. The premise of a liberal democracy is that if enough people want something, it must be the right course of action. But foreign policy is about something else — something more.
There are many factors that contribute to the development of Canada’s foreign policy: international commitments, our geographical proximity, and our history (what we have done before) are but a few. These all add to what has been a cohesive and coherent foreign policy for Canada, as a whole. Over time, these strategies do change, as circumstances change, but it is Canada’s self-interests that, as if it were a distinct personality, are put forward. This is why the current pillars of Canada’s foreign policy are defence, diplomacy and development. They are all designed to protect Canada’s interests, and the government has an obligation to look out for the national interests of all Canadians, as one.
When we start to cater to those interests of the many voices in society, the result is the debasement of a coherent strategy for Canada. Part of the problem of this lies in the habit of political parties to chase standings on opinion polls: doing what is right for Canada may not be politically expedient in Quebec or Ontario, for example. Another part of the dilemma is that most people are reacting emotionally to an issue, sometimes with not all the facts at hand. Take, for example, a disaster that occurs around the globe — a tsunami or an earthquake. The media images cause an outpouring of sympathy for the survivors, which then place a demand upon the government to react. This could take funds/resources away from other projects, and the question of what is good for Canada, apart from the image of being a philanthropic nation, is not considered. Such efforts could then weaken our strategy position elsewhere.
This enquiry has not been made lightly to evoke a calloused response from the Canadian government. On the contrary, it raises the question of whether we are in a new age of foreign policy development where citizens can now take the lead on issues such as development or even human rights. The government is still charged with the task of looking out for Canadian interests, but we as citizens of humanity can make our own paths, and that is truly democratic. And where we lead, Canada is surely to follow.
John Kennair is an international business consultant who lives in St. Albert.
