The vanishing Canadian
by Daryl Copeland
June 28, 2013
Between reports of convulsions shaking Turkey and Brazil, the election of a moderate president in Iran, the despatch of a UN “intervention force” to the DRC and revelations of massive cyber-surveillance, Canadians are understandably distracted. Few seem to be paying much attention to an issue of longer-term and potentially much larger domestic consequence: Canada’s changing place in the world.
Being abroad is useful in terms of gathering insights not so easily gleaned from home. Over the past six months I have been teaching at Otago University in Dunedin, New Zealand, and last month I participated in several conferences in Europe.
What did I learn? When it comes to foreign perceptions of Canada, something fundamental has changed. This country and its people are no longer accorded the admiration and esteem that until recently was the norm.
The red maple leaf, once a widely recognized and even revered symbol of Canadian internationalism, does not evoke the enthusiastic response that once made it the envy of backpackers everywhere. The magic is gone.
As a wandering student in the 1970s and 80s, I delighted in the warm reception that was extended most everywhere. I attributed that hospitality in large part to my nationality.
Over the course of a 30-year career representing Canada officially, I found that contact-making and relationship-building was easy to do. Doors opened, conversations flowed and the development of interpersonal networks based on confidence, trust and respect — the bedrock of diplomatic practice — was neither complicated nor difficult.
I encountered a strong, positive predisposition towards Canada and Canadians which, at the most immediate level, evoked a smile rather than a scowl.
It doesn’t really matter whether this favourable disposition was associated with decades of peacekeeping, or generous development assistance, or Canada’s association with innovative and unthreatening approaches to international policy more generally.
What counts is that the accumulated goodwill, or national brand equity, was there. It was tangible. It existed mainly in the eyes of the beholder, but it paid real economic and political dividends.
The helpful fixer, honest broker and Boy Scout to the world is today no more than a fading memory.
I am not one for nostalgia, and have never been convinced of the existence of a “golden age” of Canadian diplomacy. Nevertheless, looking back thirty years, the record of progressive international activism is indelible. Think, for instance, of Canada’s central role as a champion of the North-South dialogue, or in the organization of the Rio Summit on Environment and Development. Canada’s leadership in negotiating agreements to control ozone layer depletion and acid rain, or within the Commonwealth to end apartheid in South Africa, fits in the same category.
A generation later, these achievements seem almost impossibly distant.
More recent Canadian initiatives — the campaigns to ban land mines or to dry up the trade in conflict diamonds, or the effort to establish an International Criminal Court or to build awareness of the plight of child soldiers — were less ambitious. Still, in hindsight, they loom large.
Countries can coast on their reputations for only so long, and the reality which underpinned Canada’s reputation as a middle power had all but disappeared by the turn of the century. Canadian advocacy of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine was the last gasp.
What has been substituted? Trade and investment are front and centre. The government promotes heavy oil extraction and pipeline construction, has introduced a raft of deregulatory policies on energy, mining and the environment, and obstructs progress on climate change. Until less than a year ago it actively supported asbestos exports.
Strategically crucial relations with the Asia-Pacific region have been strained, those with Africa downgraded, and those with Israel, the United States and “the hemisphere” have been burnished. Multilateralism has been disdained, the aid budget cut and military solutions pursued in Afghanistan and Libya, with uncertain results. Religious freedom has emerged as a central theme.
All of this is finally being noticed. Canada’s spectacular failure in late 2010 to win an elected seat on the UN Security Council — losing to Portugal — illuminated the country’s diminished stature with devastating clarity.
The absence of anything resembling a grand strategy, and the policy incoherence and missteps which have resulted, explain in part Canada’s failing reputation and faltering performance. Yet Canada almost certainly would have fared better were it not for what amounts to an assault on diplomacy as a primary instrument of statecraft.
A perfect storm has been unleashed, and this has afflicted all three elements of the diplomatic ecosystem — the foreign ministry, the foreign service and the diplomatic business model. DFAIT’s resources have been severely slashed — over $300 million by 2014-15 — and the department is struggling under the burden of accommodating its unanticipated merger with CIDA.
The government’s unprecedented insistence on centralized control over all communications has virtually eliminated Canadian public and digital diplomacy, the very tools which otherwise would constitute this country’s comparative advantage vis/em> the competition.
It may be that roiling markets, the unending eurozone crisis and a pre-occupation with threats and challenges lurking perilously close to the front door have distracted Canadians from any sustained reflection on shifts in world order.
But make no mistake. For Canada, the global game has changed … and not for the better.
Daryl Copeland, Senior Fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute and former Canadian diplomat, is an educator, analyst, consultant, and the author of Guerrilla Diplomacy, Rethinking International Relations. For more information and commentary, see www.guerrilladiplomacy.com