Canada Foreign Policy
Friday, March 26, 2004
  Hard Rhetoric Soft Power

Something “seismic” may be happening, and I’m wondering how many people in Ottawa are noticing. A recent report posted on the MSNBC website made me think of the Great Game, middle powers, and how Canada fits into all this. On 24 March 2004 Financial Times writers Leslie Crawford and Christopher Adams [article available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4590619] covered a meeting between US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Spain’s new Prime Minister, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. The authors noted that Powell was kept waiting by the new Spanish leader while talks went ahead with French President Jacques Chirac. The Madrid visit afforded the US official the opportunity to “witness first hand the seismic shift that is taking place in Spanish foreign policy.” The Iberian nation is, after all, preparing “to withdraw troops from Iraq without seeming to be soft on terrorism.”

The world may be decades away from the day the Trans-Atlantic Alliance is swept into the history books. Nevertheless, Powell’s Madrid experience suggests the institution may not be as robust as only recently thought, and that nascent competitiveness, played out in the diplomatic and political arenas, may strangle cooperation and grow to characterize US-European relations in the not too distant future. If this indeed is the case, how long before analysts and observers come out of the woodwork with references to a new Great Game?

The Great Game is a term applied to a nineteenth century rivalry between Great Britain and Russia, played out all across Central Asia, from Afghanistan, through Iran, for the wealth that India yielded, for control of the Silk Road, and for spheres of influence. This was the great age of imperialism. Undoubtedly Moscow will resurface in analyses of any new Game, especially if discussion focuses on pipelines and Caucasian oil. Yet Russia is now waning, and a newer incarnation is just as likely to feature a rivalry with the European Union.

Here I am not so much interested in the historical or geopolitical details of any version of the Game. Rather, intriguing is what historian Robert Darnton means under the rubric of “mentality.” That is, borrowing crudely from Darnton, it may be observed that those who breathed life into the conceptual framework of the Great Game were of a particular culture, mindset, and held to certain values. Their preoccupation remained the “center,” usually to the exclusion of any other variable. Almost all events were perceived as the result of a clash of great power interests. Local populations, the targets or victims of imperial policies, were hardly mentioned, and rarely seen as agents that could in any meaningful sense impact political outcomes. When observers of the Great Game ventured out of Central Asia to deal with what may be dubbed the middle powers of their day, to the United States, Persia, Turkey, Japan and China, betrayed was the sensibility that these states were little more than the objects of great power machinations.

So what has any of this to do with Canada in 2004, where the outside world remains firmly off the radar? Stephen Harper is now Conservative leader, and the public seems to want to know about his talents as a manager of the public trust, not his take on international affairs, historical or current. Recent Liberal government exercises, notably the issuing of the latest budget, inspire accountants, not foreign policy observers. Where the pre-election budget does deal with priorities outside our borders, it offers tax breaks to soldiers serving our country in conflict zones. In recent weeks mention has been made of homeland security initiatives. I suppose it’s only a matter of perhaps months before some old issues, the defense of the Arctic and protecting northern borders, are aired out before little is done.

When foreign policy rhetoric does heat up, however, it will aim to inflame passion for middle power ideology, for the influence of soft power on the world stage. Our “mentality” forces us into discussions that will no doubt focus on what Canada can accomplish as a middle power. What we can offer the world is our expertise in repairing what are now dubbed “failed states.” We will bring institution building, democratization, and regulatory regimes to where they’re needed. Canadians will become ardent about what our talents can do to empower those subsisting at the margins of the global system. These are laudable goals. However, my interest here is merely “mentality” and to make the point that whereas proponents of a Great Game world view were blind to all but power, Canada may fail, in pursuing its Minor Game, to come to terms with what power can do.

If our worldview is in fact reduced to a dichotomy of middle power and failed state, how can we ever come to terms with the impact of great power in a new Great Game?


Stan Markotich

Submit comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com
 
Monday, March 22, 2004
  A new analytical essay will be posted by 26 March 2004. Meanwhile, on 17 March 2004 Mr. John Lowe, of British Columbia, Canada wrote:




"It’s refreshing to read some good Canadian soul searching. I wonder as well what has happened to us over the last decade. And I have some questions.

What happened to our status as peacekeepers? While we still practice this role, we don’t want to acknowledge this fact. Do we ignore foreign policy because we believe our reputation is visibly tarnished, and we’re in denial? If so, why is our reputation so tarnished? Is it because our former leader wasted precious resources on crass and superficial political patronage and autocratic role playing instead of making the right foreign policy moves? Is it because old JC [former Prime Minsiter Jean Chretien] practically quenched and minimized our military, and ignored strategic alliances to pursue a sordid crony conspiracy?

While Paul Martin may vow to bring us back to good form it will take more than a politician’s vow, or rhetoric. When I see him get serious about our military, I may be a little less skeptical."



 
Thursday, March 18, 2004
  FOR INSIGHTFUL COMMENTARY AND SOME OF THE BEST UP-TO-THE-MINUTE COVERAGE OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE WORLD GO TO:



www.warandpiece.com
 
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
  Outside our Borders

Do events outside our borders really matter all that much to Canadians? Just listening to local Vancouver news radio in recent days, I’ve noticed more headlines given over to happenings around the world. There’s extensive coverage of the tragedy in Spain, growing references to the Middle East, and suggestions that violence in Iraq is picking up.

It may simply be the case that Stephen Harper and Tony Clemet don’t have all that much time to sit back and take in their local broadcasters. They are, after all, in the throes of a race for the leadership of the Tory Party. I listened to the two debate on Global Sunday on 14 March 2004 and heard no mention of foreign policy, and only a few sentences, subjected to some creative interpretation, that could indicate at least a passing interest in international affairs. To be fair, both have commented on Canada and the outside world both well before and after 14 March. Yet to evade the topic in the context of a nationally televised debate is noteworthy.

Is it simply the case that the outside world is of no interest to Canadians, that both men know this, and to pretend and to act otherwise might actually exact a political price? In some minds, foreign policy is synonymous with aid to poor countries and/or spending on the military. Times are tough and shipping any dollars overseas is something many individuals and groups simply can’t stomach.


But I can’t help think how strange the proverbial visitor from another galaxy would find our penchant for navel gazing. After all, simple geography proves Canada is one of the largest states on the planet. Most of our wealth comes from being able to trade. We are not unique in having experienced SARS and bird flu. Canadian forces are in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Haiti, and other places. Immigration and refugees impact our population. Some nations see protectionism and global trade as pivotal issues, worthy of more than just a passing mention. Our neighbours to the south are retooling their debating skills for what is shaping up to be an election year in which foreign policy will play a major if not defining role. Europeans will be talking about security. The rise of China and India may be epochal, of far greater significance in the long term than the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So again I have to ask: do events outside our borders really matter all that much to Canadians? While the answer may be yes, just assured is the fact that what in part defines us seems to be that we don’t want to notice. How long can the impact of the outside world and our interest remain in inverse proportion?

Liberal Party leader and Prime Minister Paul Martin some weeks ago observed that not too long ago Canada had a palpable presence on the world stage. He added that we were once used “to punching above our weight” and vowed that the country would be there again. Will our entire national foreign policy review begin, end, and die on the vine with the Prime Minister’s observations?


Stan Markotich

"About the Author" coming soon. Submit comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com where insightful remarks will be published. 
Saturday, March 13, 2004
  Essays on geopolitics and Canada's role in world affairs. First commentary expected 15 MARCH 2004. 
A discussion of geopolitics and Canada's role in the world. A series of essays to examine the components of Canadian foreign policy making. Psychological, sociological, historical, and cultural variables impacting Canada's perceptions of the world.

ARCHIVES
03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 / 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 / 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 / 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 / 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 / 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 / 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 / 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 / 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 / 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 / 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 / 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 / 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 / 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 / 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 / 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 / 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 / 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 / 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 / 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 / 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 / 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 / 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 / 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 / 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 / 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 / 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 / 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 / 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 / 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 / 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 / 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 / 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 / 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 / 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 / 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 / 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 / 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 / 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 / 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 / 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 / 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 / 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 / 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 /

Listed on BlogsCanada