Ever since Canada lost its bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council, an overwhelming number of Canadian analysts have been calling for a comprehensive foreign policy review (see also here and here and here).
 
According to the University of Calgary’s Jean-Christophe Boucher, some are even advocating a Royal Commission.
 
I was not comfortable when Canadian Foreign Minister François-Philippe Champagne proposed to “launch a white paper on Canada’s feminist foreign policy” four months ago.
 
And while I don’t agree that Canada’s Security Council election defeat represents the global rejection of Canadian foreign policy that critics have made it out to be, even if it does, I still wouldn't think that the time was right for a foreign policy review.
 
Historically, foreign policy reviews conducted under minority governments have sputtered.
 
Prime Minister Joe Clark tried one in 1979, but it was cancelled when his government fell unexpectedly a couple of months later.
 
Prime Minister Paul Martin tried in 2005. His review made it to press, only to be archived a few months later when Stephen Harper’s Conservatives took power.
 
It’s also an election year in the United States, and Canada’s close ties to the US – economically, militarily, historically, and geographically – mean that the policy of the next administration will have a critical impact on Ottawa’s international realm.
 
To conduct a foreign policy review before we are certain of who will sit in the White House and control the Senate next year seems imprudent.
 
These reasons don’t begin to take into account the logistics of launching a review in the midst of Global Affairs Canada's efforts to deal with the impact of a pandemic while working remotely.
 
Nor do they consider how Canadians will pay for the findings of the review. (These sorts of exercises always conclude that Canada should do more in the world.)
 
None of this means that Canadian foreign policy is in a good place.
 
Critics are correct in suggesting that Ottawa’s searing rhetoric has failed to align with its more guarded international commitments.
 
But doing something is not the only way to address this discrepancy. For now, the best solution might be to simply cut down on the sloganeering.
 
Our government could do worse than dispensing with all of its talk of Canadian global leadership; avoiding the further politicization of foreign policy through its deliberate and unhelpful branding efforts; and empowering the outstanding people at Global Affairs Canada and in other departments with international responsibilities to promote and defend Canadian national interests.
 
We can start thinking more seriously about the future of Canadian foreign policy on November 4th, 2020. But I still don’t see the value of undertaking a formal review until one of our political parties commands a majority in the House of Commons.
 
***
 
If you’re interested in learning more about Canadian foreign policy reviews, take a look at the work of David Malone, William Hogg, John Noble, and Randolph Mank. I wrote something about the origins of Canada’s feminist foreign policy here, but for a real expert’s take, check out the work of Rebecca Tiessen.

To be notified of the next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

The excellent public policy magazine, Policy Options, graciously published my response to Canada's defeat in its bid for a two-year seat on the UN Security Council. I cannot praise the editorial team, including Jennifer Ditchburn and Evangeline Sadler, enough for the way they improved my rushed first draft. You can find the article here.

 Last week, Peter Donolo, a long-time Liberal political strategist, wrote a scathing critique of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s response to a media query about US President Donald Trump’s tasteless reaction to the violent death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer.
 
Given the broad consensus among Canadians that the president’s conduct has been contemptible, Donolo questioned the merits of Trudeau’s 21-second pause, which was followed by a refusal to call out Trump directly. 
 
Donolo justified his condemnation by drawing heavily from Trudeau’s own words.
 
The prime minister claimed that his job was (1) “to stand up for our interests,” and (2) “to stand up for our values.”
 
And while it was certainly not in Canada’s interests to risk the president’s wrath by scorning him publicly, Donolo wondered whether the PM’s refusal to criticize Trump personally meant that he had failed on the second front.
 
“If we only find our voice when there is no risk,” he concluded, “then we are not truly sovereign.”
 
I don’t agree with Donolo - conscious decisions not to act are just as much acts of a soveign state as are actions themselves - but by invoking the idea that the role of the prime minister is to stand up for the values of Canadians, Trudeau brought this criticism upon himself. (The unnecessarily dramatic 21-second pause didn’t help, either.)
 
In 2017, then Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland articulated a vision for Canada on the world stage that, presumably, also represented the views of our prime minister:
 
“Now, it is clearly not our role to impose our values around the world,” she said. “No one appointed us the world’s policeman.”
 
Admittedly, Freeland went on to suggest that it was the government’s duty “to clearly stand for these rights both in Canada and abroad,” but how she explained standing for, rather than Trudeau’s standing up for, is critical:
 
“It is our role,” she said, “to set a standard for how states should treat women, gays and lesbians, transgendered people, racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious minorities, and Indigenous people.”
 
We stand, in short, by our actions, and those actions must begin at home.
 
As the prime minister is well-aware, when it comes to racial inequality, Canadians have little to brag about.
 
In that context, Trudeau was right not to take the media’s bait and wax smugly about the US president.
 
Moreover, those who support fundamental change in America should be grateful that he held his tongue.
 
At present, Republicans are divided over President Trump’s conduct. Those internal divisions are part of what is enabling what appears to be a normative shift in US society.
 
Criticism of the president by a Canadian prime minister (who cannot recall how many times he has dressed up in blackface) might well have spurred Republican Party members to reunite in opposition to foreign meddling in their country’s internal affairs.
 
The White House communications team could have used Trudeau to distract the public from the situation on America’s streets.
 
In sum, it is hard to imagine a worse time for self-righteous indignation in Canadian foreign policy.

​The best response to President Trump is to get our own house in order.
 
***
Brian Bow continues to do excellent research into Canada-US relations. On race, why not take a look at the work of Laura Madokoro.
 
To be notified of the next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.