Above: The first instalment in The West Block’s series The Big Idea, in which we look beyond the daily political skirmishes and the who’s up/who’s down narrative. Here, we engage in a broader and more engaging discussion of our potential as a nation and a people.
It’s a simple idea, really: craft a foreign policy focus the country can carry for decades. The catch? Canada’s major political parties would need to sit around the table and agree to something.
Even the person behind the idea says it may sound a little naive, and this is a woman whose resume includes sitting on the Supreme Court bench and acting as chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda. But if Canada could pull off the feat, she says, it would help the country climb back on to the world stage, a place in which it used to shine.
“If I were to give advice to Canadian leaders, I would suggest a multi-party agreement on core foreign policy objectives to which all political parties would subscribe,” said Louise Arbour, president and CEO of the International Crisis Group. “Take one or two initiatives so you don’t invest in something and when there is a change of government … it is completely abandoned.”
Foreign policy v. politics
The idea could become a reality, Arbour said, so long as the country’s leaders don’t let politics get in the way. But she’s not holding her breath.
“Let’s put it this way. It’s very naive to think that there would be any appetite amongst Canadian political leaders to have a kind of joint bipartisan or tripartisan development of foreign policy,” she said. “But it would be a great gift.”
Canada was once a big player—a leader—on foreign initiatives like criminal justice and peacekeeping.
WACTH: Louise Arbour discusses Canada’s need to re-engage in the world.
“In the last, maybe, 20 years, Canada was a convenor, was very much a leader in ideas that have shaped, I think, foreign policies on the world scene. And it mattered,” Arbour said. “I mean, I would talk to diplomats and it mattered what … the Canadians thought about something. Now I don’t think it does.”
Outside Canada, memories of the country’s involvement in foreign initiatives may be slipping, Arbour said. Within our borders, however, she said she hopes people can recall the nation’s one-time link to developing strategies and concepts for peacekeeping, or even in bringing accountability to political leadership— all areas in which Canada was, in Arbour’s words, a very big driving force.
Short-term gains v. long-term commitments
“In this current environment, you don’t see a Canadian footprint on any of the large, UN-type multilateral big security initiatives. It seems that the focus has been much more diplomacy-based in advancing economic interests,” she said.
“In all the big democracies, the big impediment to impact is ‘short-termism.’ Everything is geared to four- or five-year electoral cycles. To change the world, you need to stay the course for a lot longer.”
And that’s where her “big idea” comes in.
“I think the world governments have a lot of issues that require very long-term commitments. And I think the countries that, in a sense, punch above their weight, are countries that have foreign policies that don’t change with every change of government.”
WATCH: Louise Arbour discusses how the country can climb back on to the world stage.
Arbour pointed to Norway as an example, where, whatever the government of the day, the country has remained committed to peace mediation. Norwegian leaders were instrumental in mediating the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, is known for its efforts to broker peace in Sri-Lanka and is now facilitating peace talks in Havana between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.
The country’s efforts are not always successful and far from being without criticism. Still, the Norwegian government stays the path.
“They have almost a national interest investment in one feature of contribution to world affairs. That is to be peace mediators,” Arbour said. “It is a sort of collective decision to contribute to international peace, security and development, and the advancement of human rights. It’s smart.”
She doesn’t suggest Canada necessarily jump on the mediating bandwagon, but rather that federal party leaders find one or two policies upon which they agree—and which Canadians can get behind—then carry that as part of the Canadian international identity.
The most important facet of the idea, however, is simply that the policy is not dropped every time the government changes.
“If you could see Canada’s political leadership embrace this kind of idea, of making a long-term commitment … (the world) would notice that Canada is back in the conversation. That would already be a big thing,” she said.
Where Canada could contribute
On top of the inherent difficulties that come in relying on political parties to put aside their specific politics, there lies another problem in the fact that foreign policy isn’t exactly a plank on which elections are fought and won, Arbour said.
“It’s very tempting, I think, for governments who don’t come with an agenda on engagement and interest in the world at large to just neglect it and focus on other priorities,” Arbour said.
As for what Canada could contribute, Arbour says there are many initiatives from which to choose including development, health and education, for example.
One area close to Arbour’s heart is justice and the rule of law.
“This is much neglected in the international scene. The UN has no particular expert in this field,” she said.
WATCH: Can Canada’s federal parties agree on foreign policy initiatives? That could prove the most challenging part of Louise Arbour’s idea for re-engagement.
In this sense, Arbour said Canada could help foreign countries develop a justice infrastructure appropriate for to each.
Domestically, Canada’s justice system has made enormous advancements in just a few decades, Arbour argued, citing the enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a turning point. That law helped empower judges and foster an increase in the quality of the procedures and delivery of justice, she said.
Exporting some of that could be considered a major contribution to the world at large, she said.
But again, this is something no one can accomplish in a few years, she said.
While justice is something with which Arbour is familiar, she said she doesn’t want to write the script for Canada’s leaders; the initiative could be anything so long as the parties and Canadians are behind it.
“I would urge the various parties to find the kind of initiatives they would want to develop … and then agree on a formula and a commitment to putting the resources and empowering diplomats to support the very long-term investment into a vision for a contribution that Canada wants to make,” she said.
“I would like to see this explored. If at least we could get an interest on the part of political parties to surrender a little bit of their competitiveness to a national interest in foreign policy, I’m sure they, and we collectively, could come up with something.”
Canada’s changing reputation
As her career evolved, Arbour moved from Canada to the international stage, affording her the chance to see the world, and her homeland, from various points of view.
When she became more engaged internationally, she realized the belief many Canadians hold about the country’s international reputation was at least somewhat flawed.
“I had, like many, a rather romantic and inaccurate perception of how we were being seen by the rest of the world,” she said. “You know, the idea that you just had to sew a Canadian flag on your backpack and the whole world would welcome you is very passé, I think. We’ve seen now very differently, if at all,” she said. “Actually, we’re not seen at all.”
WATCH: Some Canadians may have a romantic view of how they’re seen around the world, Louise Arbour argues.
Arbour started her law career as a clerk for Justice Louis-Philippe Pigeon in the 1970s. Although she can’t tell you exactly what drew her to the field, she knows what kept her going to where she is now.
“The first opportunity I had to work internationally was a in a very exhilarating field. It was the first attempt since the Nuremberg Trials to bring personal criminal responsibility through the tribunals to the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda,” she said. “To be part of the expansion of the concept of criminal responsibility to the international theme was very exhilarating.”
There is a downside, however: missing her home and her family through constant travel and living abroad.
“At every turn, I have found it very difficult to sustain that over a long period of time. I’m always drawn between the desire to come back home and this appetite for being a part of these bigger issues.”
Comments