Canada's Foreign Policy Myth Rebutted

Today (June 30), in the Globe and Mail, Michael Valpy has an article where he discusses the enduring perception of Canada as a peacekeeping nation. He describes the moral idealism that embodied the foreign policy of the Pearson era.

Mr. Valpy comes to the conclusion that Canada's positive image in foreign policy is no more than a myth now. Thanks to a decline in Pearsonian idealism since 1960, Canada's foreign policy no longer reflects a "specially endowed middle power, as the reasonable man's country, as the broker or the skilled intermediary, [that] made peace.”

There is no doubt that since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan (if not earlier) Canada's peacekeeping efforts have declined. The number of peacekeepers we have abroad has dwindled and probably correspondingly, so has our international presence.

However, it is important to note that Mr. Valpy's comparison to the past ignores two major facts: the first being that the nature of war has changed since 1960 and second, Canada no longer has the same amount of resources to draw upon for peacekeeping purposes.

In the immediate period following the end of World War II until the turn of the century, conflicts were largely between states. This usually meant a breach of one actor's sovereign territory or other aggression that broke whatever fragile international law there is. This made it easier for other states to align themselves in support. One could either help defend the victim's right to sovereignty or support whatever claims were made to authorize the aggression. The common link was that there was something specific to fight over... and most of the time this was territory.

Today's conflicts are increasingly intra-state and based on ethnic cleavages. It is this difference that makes foreign involvement difficult. Except for instances of clear aggression by one side, choosing sides means picking one ethnicity over another. For a secular nation like Canada this is a minefield of problems. In an increasingly globalized world, singling out a specific ethnic group is an invitation for trouble. Ethnicity extends beyond the man made borders that divide this world. To move against one faction of an ethnic group is likely to create a reaction from its other members worldwide. Thus, it doesn't make much sense to involve yourself in contentious issues that will almost certainly create a negative backlash. The divisions between right and wrong are less defined and the chances for mistakes are greater. This just makes it that much harder to find it strategically wise to intervene and keep the peace.

In regards to the second point, Canada has changed, plain and simple. We are a nation that was sired in warfare. Many of our major achievements have resulted from our participation in armed conflict. This made it necessary for Canada to be well prepared. Post-1945, Canada had the fourth largest standing military force and a large military industrial complex to back them thanks to our natural reserves. This is no longer the case.

After the war, Canada removed the draft, returned its workforce and resources, to non-military applications and bought into the idea of collective security. Our neighbour to the South, for example, continued to build up its defence capabilities to the point where the military industrial complex is one of the largest sectors of the U.S. economy. In comparison, Canada's complex is one of the smallest economic sectors. This limits our capabilities to engage ourselves abroad.

Involving ourselves in a major engagement like Afghanistan is taxing on our resources and to extend ourselves beyond that is dangerous. It is crucial to remember that great power states like Britain, the USSR and potentially the United States were brought down by over-stretching their assets. We should be wary to learn from history for fear of the idea that if you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. While Canada isn't a great power, we should still be sure not to over-extert what we do have.

It isn't that I don't think Canada should not be involved in peacekeeping (more), its just that it seems that many people who argue this point appear to be oblivious of the changes that have occurred to international conflict as well as our nation and its capabilities. It wouldn't be wise to have our foreign policy dictated by ideals from a previous era, but at the same time we have a commitment to our predecessors to honour what they did. The challenge is how to do both.

- blenCOWe