Speaking a Different Language Than Everyone Else

I was reading the latest article in Embassy about Romeo Dallaire's response to the change in diplomatic language regarding child soldiers (or "children in armed conflict") and it got me thinking about the effect this might have on Canada's efforts on this issue and the other areas that received a "Harper-izing" of diplomatic language. If we start changing the language our diplomats can use from the language that is normally used by the majority of others in the international community, isn't the chance for communication failures greater? Why is it necessary for Canada to be using a different language from everyone else when talking about subjects that require a great deal of multilateral cooperation for any real progress to be made? Changing the language that diplomats are allowed to use makes confusion more likely and cooperation more difficult and timely.

The Harper government has maintained that the change in language was done in order to have Canada's diplomats using words that are more in line with the policies of the current government. Doesn't this then indicate that the priorities of the government of Canada are changing from the priorities of the rest of the international community? If, though, Canada's priorities in these areas are not different from everyone else then I would view the changes as creating more trouble than they are worth and likely problematic.

One interesting view considered by the article was that the change reflects an expansion of policy to consider more than just children who act as soldiers:

" 'Child soldiers' generally includes only youth and children who act as armed militants, while 'children in armed conflict' would theoretically encompass those used as porters, water carriers and in other support activities. It would also include girls and young women who are held as sex slaves or used to manage an operation's logistics. Essentially, it enlarges the definition to include those who participate in combat or are exploited by it, but aren't armed."

Now, I might be more inclined to believe that the change in language represented an expansion of the focus of the policies to account for a more inclusive definition if the Harper government had not been fighting efforts to repatriate Omar Khadr so vigourously. In my opinion Mr. Khadr falls under the subject of child soldier, but even if you disagree with that, he would definitely be counted as a child in armed conflict give the fact that he was a minor when captured. As such, it is clear from the actions of the Harper government that the change in language does not represent an expansion of term but merely more political games by the Conservative government.

- blenCOWe

More Cuts Threaten Canada's Foreign Policy Priorities

One again Canadians are finding out how the manner in which the Harper government plans to achieve its foreign policy goals in these times of fiscal restraint. The word of the day is that nasty little "c-word" known as cuts.

An article in today's Embassy announced that at the end of July, all of Canada's "Ambassadors, High Commissioners and Charges d'Affaires were told that program budgets for all missions were being immediately cut by 50 per cent. The program budget pays for such things as attending and hosting events and conferences, public diplomacy efforts and human rights advocacy."

Now cuts to some things like hosted events and conferences were expected and it is reasonable, to some extent, that things like events and conferences face cuts when money is tight. However, to make drastic cuts to the funding of public diplomacy efforts and human rights advocacy constitutes what I believe to be a direct threat to Canada's ability to pursue its foreign policy objectives.

Canada is currently on a rocky foreign policy path and cuts like this can transform rocky into treacherous. Right now some of the Canadian government's foreign policy priorities include campaigning for a seat on the United Nations Security Council in 2010 as well as smoothing over a shift in governmental priorities towards Latin and South American that has left many states in Africa feeling more than a little bit jilted. Dealing with these challenges requires a fair amount of engagement in the international community and perfect examples of this are public diplomacy and human rights advocacy. These types of diplomatic initiative are crucial to build up Canada's image and influence in international relations and to cut the budgets for these programs across the board and by half shows that the Harper government is not backing up their stated intentions to pursue its objectives with the resources necessary to be effective in the pursuit.

Probably even worse is that this looks to be the beginning of another political game. The way I see, the Harper government is hoping to make DFAIT look like it is being fiscally irresponsible by introducing the cuts at a time that will practically ensure that the missions abroad will be over budget. How does the Harper government expect the missions to stay under budget when they cut half of the budget half-way through the fiscal year. Realistically it is possible that many missions have already spent their new budget allocations thus placing them in the difficult position of spending more than their budget, canceling the rest of those programs' events for the rest of the year or redirecting some of the funds of the other programs that have already faced to cuts to attempt to save some of these diplomatic necessities. In times of fiscal crunch, government departments, especially ones that some Canadians may not see the benefits from on a regular or semi-regular basis, that go over budget are almost destined to become political scapegoats. This doesn't strike me as an example of good governance (oops, Liberal-Era language!) when the political masters of departments are setting up the civil servants, that run them, to fail!

How does Harper believe, and expect Canadians to believe, that Canada is being guided through these difficult times in a manner that will be beneficial to the nation?

- blenCOWe

Some Canadian Diplomacy That Actually Makes Sense

For a while now, there has been a lot of talk about how under the Harper government Canada's strength and image in international relations have been woefully tarnished. Whether it has been the issues regarding repatriating Canadians being held abroad, like Omar Khadr, the inaction of the Canadian government in helping to address some of the many crises currently affecting international peace, or the way that Afghanistan has been dominating much of our foreign policy focus in the last 7 years, Canada's international presence has been taking hits left and right.

A while back I posted about my disgust at reports that the Harper government would not challenge for a seat in the upcoming UN Security Council elections for fear of losing that battle. A fear made realistic by many of the blunders and ill-conceived stances seen in recent years. Canada has done very well for itself when on the council in recent years and to not run for election because it would have been difficult or that there was the chance that we could lose would have been the ultimate sign of weakness and a step back from our storied internationalism. Fortunately, though, this has been a decision since reversed. Foreign policy is about using the resources one has to get what one wants. If your have the resources it does not make sense to not use them for the things you want.

My reason for bringing this up is that I am happy to see Harper's government finally taking a stand and pursuing its own foreign policy agenda and with force. Doug Saunders has an article in the Globe and Mail today that details the strong diplomatic push that Canada is making in Europe to show Europeans that the Arctic is Canadian territory. Canadian Embassies and diplomats are pushing Canadian images and Arctic policy wherever they can: sponsoring art exhibits, cultural displays and visiting officials like minister Lawrence Cannon and Governor General Michaelle Jean. Even better is the fact that this diplomatic push is avoiding the Cold War rhetoric of Arctic security and focusing on Canada's continued presence and cultural heritage in the Arctic. Its a softer type of diplomacy that is still being delivered with force. A diplomacy that will work for Canada (especially in Europe) and that Canadians can be proud of. Finally, the Harper government is "standing up for Canada" in a way that makes sense for Canada.

- blenCOWe

Russia Maybe Misfires

In expelling two Canadian diplomats working with the NATO office in Moscow, Russia may have misfired in expressing its anger over the ongoing military exercises taking place in neighbouring Georgia.

Russia has informed the Canadian Ambassador to Russia, Ralph Lysyshyn, that it would be expelling Isabelle Francois, Director of NATO information, and her deputy. It seems, though, that Russia could have made a wiser, more targeted decision to show its displeasure. It is no real secret that the United States is a major ally of Georgia and is pretty much the central cog in the NATO machine. If Russia wanted to make a truely strong statement about what it deems to be "muscle flexing" then it should have flexed its muscles and expelled an American diplomat, or someone from one of the other world powers.

On the other hand, Canada has become more vocal, recently, on Russia's activities. By choosing to expel Canadian diplomats it could be Russia's version of "killing two birds with one stone." The problem with this being Russia's intent would be that it would be an unclear message to Canada, especially after this much time. Sending mixed messages is not the way to conduct international diplomacy and one would hope that Russia would understand that.

The result, then, is essentially that in the best case scenario Russia has misfired in directing its displeasure and the worst case being that it is sending mixed messages concerning Canada.

- blenCOWe