The recent examination of Canada’s foreign policy in the media reflects contemporary questions that many academics have been asking: Has Canada deviated from its traditional stance on its foreign relations? Many lament that Canada no longer plays the role on the world stage that it once prided itself upon.
Ironically, Canada’s role has not changed. Our perception of that position, however, has become questioned, undermining our beliefs in what we envisioned our part to be.
Since the Second World War, Canada has talked about being a leader on the world stage for self-serving reasons, echoing an ideal put forth by Sir Wilfred Laurier in the late 19th century. As Canada tried to carve a position for itself, it believed that the state with the most experience and knowledge in specific areas should lead, not just the state that’s the most dominant. Such actions, our nation believed, would be a mark of statehood. But one is only a leader if others follow, and though this strikes at the Canadian ego, Canada rarely led. Canada acknowledged that to be a great power, leading on the world stage required great investments – costs – which it was not prepared to bear.
Instead, therefore, Canada played a polarized role, maintaining stability on the global stage between competing superpowers. Acting as an interlocutor between two competing powers was an important role, as the U.S. or other great powers could pursue this purpose. But with the end of the Cold War, this all changed.
In the immediate decade that followed, Canada did strive to take a moral path, using soft, influential power, along with other second-tiered states on the world stage, but our attentions were shifting toward stronger continental relations, which served our economy. This was a position not dissimilar to our interests in pre-Second World War years: trade was our focus.
Canada did persist, however, in branding itself with an image of philanthropy, as a do-gooder, as this resonated well with the public, to the point that some would say our foreign policy was becoming democratized, as the government responded to special interests both within and outside of Canada. But were such actions truly in the interests of Canada as a state, or were they nothing more than the act of building up our own self-esteem?
The role of our government, with regard to foreign policy, is to look out for the interests of Canadians. This usually reflects the domestic interests of the state, which, if needed, will ignore Canadian values for the sake of the economy. This is a government’s default position. This is why Canada will pursue trade agreements with countries with which it does not share values, as it is our international trade that matters. It is also for this same reason that Canada follows the U.S. on international affairs, because we are intrinsically linked to the States through our economy and, like it or not, our values.
So, when the media, academia, or an opposition party bridles at Canada’s new direction in foreign aid or Middle East policies, stop and ask: what truly are the interests of Canada and Canadians? Since Canada started to develop its own foreign relations back in 1908, what every prime minister has adhered to is a foreign policy based upon pragmatism. Though it seems like there has been great change under the Harper government, in truth, Canada is doing what it has always done – pursuing its own interests.
John Kennair is an international consultant and doctor of laws who lives in St. Albert.
