Richard Gwyn
Toronto Star
May 24, 2016
We’re an exceptionally successful nation, but only a medium-size one, our capacity to take on international roles is limited
Canada's Foreign Minister Stephane Dion shakes hands with Myanmar's Foreign Minister Aung San Suu Kyi before their meeting at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Naypyitaw in April. "Dion has already coined a name for Canadian foreign policy, namely that it will be based on 'responsible conviction,' a term that seems to mean we’ll listen to other countries rather than tell them what to do," writes Richard Gwyn. (REUTERS)
Can Canada make an impact upon the world? Or, even if done well, would a sustained attempt to achieve this kind of stature leave us looking foolish?
That such an effort will be made by this government was signaled by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at last December’s climate change conference in Paris. There, Trudeau declared that Canada would exercise, “a new leadership role” internationally.
This work has now begun. Beyond argument, it is extensive and it is determined.
The minister of international development, Marie-Claude Bibeau, has just announced a major study of Canada’s badly lagging program of aid to poor countries.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has announced he will complete his project by the end of this year. He’s described his goal as to put together, “a perfect mix of personnel, training and equipment.”
The minister of international trade, Chrystia Freeland, is doing the same for her responsibilities for negotiating trade pacts.
Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion is the furthest ahead. He’s already coined a name for Canadian foreign policy, namely that it will be based on “responsible conviction,” a term that seems to mean we’ll listen to other countries rather than tell them what to do.
The scale of these studies is unprecedented, and the goodwill that motivates them is genuine. Already, invitations are coming our way. This month Dion took part in the meeting in Vienna of a 24-member group, headed by the U.S. and Russia, that is trying to negotiate a ceasefire in Syria.
These qualities, though, are where the difficulties begin. We’re indeed an exceptionally successful nation. But we are only a medium-size nation.
In several respects, our capacity to take on international roles is decidedly limited. Our military capacity is well-below our national size, indeed it’s one of the smallest proportionately of all the member-states of NATO.
We’re as mingy about foreign aid. The target of the United Nations is that well-off countries should spend 0.7 per cent of their national output on aid. While Britain is at that mark, Canada’s equivalent is a mere 0.28 per cent.
This is to say that we often talk better than we actually do. The most vivid example is Canada’s recent sale of armoured cars to Saudi Arabia where some are certain to be used against that country’s own people. (Earlier, that fear had prompted Sweden to cancel a military sale to the same customer.)
Sometimes, luck makes us look better than we really are. Our taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees with another 10,000 due to join them was a major accomplishment, most especially so in comparison to the bungling of most of the European states. We enjoyed, though, one asset that made it much easier for us to cope with the intake of newcomers. It’s called the Atlantic Ocean.
The attempt to do what we can to make the world a better place, of some bits and pieces of it at least, is well worth undertaking. Dion caught the character of the challenge by his comment, “This is not a choice. It’s a duty”.
Actually, it’s not so much either a choice or duty; rather, it is us.
Richard Gwyn’s column appears every other Tuesday. gwynr@sympatico.ca
We’re an exceptionally successful nation, but only a medium-size one, our capacity to take on international roles is limited
Canada's Foreign Minister Stephane Dion shakes hands with Myanmar's Foreign Minister Aung San Suu Kyi before their meeting at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Naypyitaw in April. "Dion has already coined a name for Canadian foreign policy, namely that it will be based on 'responsible conviction,' a term that seems to mean we’ll listen to other countries rather than tell them what to do," writes Richard Gwyn. (REUTERS) Can Canada make an impact upon the world? Or, even if done well, would a sustained attempt to achieve this kind of stature leave us looking foolish?
That such an effort will be made by this government was signaled by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at last December’s climate change conference in Paris. There, Trudeau declared that Canada would exercise, “a new leadership role” internationally.
This work has now begun. Beyond argument, it is extensive and it is determined.
The minister of international development, Marie-Claude Bibeau, has just announced a major study of Canada’s badly lagging program of aid to poor countries.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has announced he will complete his project by the end of this year. He’s described his goal as to put together, “a perfect mix of personnel, training and equipment.”
The minister of international trade, Chrystia Freeland, is doing the same for her responsibilities for negotiating trade pacts.
Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion is the furthest ahead. He’s already coined a name for Canadian foreign policy, namely that it will be based on “responsible conviction,” a term that seems to mean we’ll listen to other countries rather than tell them what to do.
The scale of these studies is unprecedented, and the goodwill that motivates them is genuine. Already, invitations are coming our way. This month Dion took part in the meeting in Vienna of a 24-member group, headed by the U.S. and Russia, that is trying to negotiate a ceasefire in Syria.
These qualities, though, are where the difficulties begin. We’re indeed an exceptionally successful nation. But we are only a medium-size nation.
In several respects, our capacity to take on international roles is decidedly limited. Our military capacity is well-below our national size, indeed it’s one of the smallest proportionately of all the member-states of NATO.
We’re as mingy about foreign aid. The target of the United Nations is that well-off countries should spend 0.7 per cent of their national output on aid. While Britain is at that mark, Canada’s equivalent is a mere 0.28 per cent.
This is to say that we often talk better than we actually do. The most vivid example is Canada’s recent sale of armoured cars to Saudi Arabia where some are certain to be used against that country’s own people. (Earlier, that fear had prompted Sweden to cancel a military sale to the same customer.)
Sometimes, luck makes us look better than we really are. Our taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees with another 10,000 due to join them was a major accomplishment, most especially so in comparison to the bungling of most of the European states. We enjoyed, though, one asset that made it much easier for us to cope with the intake of newcomers. It’s called the Atlantic Ocean.
The attempt to do what we can to make the world a better place, of some bits and pieces of it at least, is well worth undertaking. Dion caught the character of the challenge by his comment, “This is not a choice. It’s a duty”.
Actually, it’s not so much either a choice or duty; rather, it is us.
Richard Gwyn’s column appears every other Tuesday. gwynr@sympatico.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment