Baird’s ‘bullhorn’
When he was working behind the scenes for the release of Mohamed Fahmy, the Egyptian-Canadian journalist unjustly imprisoned in Cairo, John Baird used to say he wouldn’t indulge in “bullhorn diplomacy.”
In fact, as Stephen Harper’s foreign minister, Baird was the master of the bullhorn when it suited him and his boss.
He used the bullhorn when sounding off against Vladimir Putin’s outrageous challenge to Ukraine’s sovereignty. He used it in 2012 when Canada abruptly shuttered its embassy in Iran. And of course he used it over and over in vowing that Canada would stand “shoulder to shoulder” with Israel in all circumstances.
There’s a lot to be said for a man who speaks his mind plainly and loudly. With Baird, at least you knew what you were getting.
He gave voice better than any previous foreign minister to what’s become known as the Harper Doctrine — aggressively patriotic, overtly militaristic, contemptuous of nuance. And, not coincidentally, much more polarizing than the bipartisan “consensus” that ruled Canada’s dealings with the rest of the world in earlier decades.
Under Baird and Harper, foreign policy is more and more just one more arena for electoral jockeying.
The aggressive style is fine if it’s used in the service of a worthwhile cause. When Baird was voicing Canada’s solidarity with Ukraine, he did well to stand firm against Russian belligerence. When he called on Russia to respect the “Olympic spirit” and stop targeting gay athletes in Sochi, and loudly denounced anti-gay laws in such countries as Uganda, his plain-speaking did Canada proud. His decision to lend Canada’s support to an international campaign against child and forced marriages was also very welcome.
But there were too many times when Baird’s bullhorn was just a tool in the service of a short-sighted and divisive view of the world.
Abruptly quitting Iran, for example, gave up any chance of playing a constructive role in that country’s negotiations with the rest of the world on its use of nuclear energy. Advertising open contempt for the United Nations may feel good, but it gives up even the possibility that Canada can be a force for badly needed reform in what remains a vital international forum.
In the Middle East Baird went overboard in embracing Egypt’s military government, despite its bloody crackdown on opponents, even as he pressed privately for the release of Fahmy. And his cheerleading for every twist in the policy of Israel’s government went far beyond Canada’s long-standing and bipartisan support for that country. In the long run that approach doesn’t serve Canada — or even Israel — well.
Baird’s surprise decision to leave politics puts an end to his particular brand of bullhorn diplomacy. But it’s the substance, not the style, that matters. And for that to change it’s clear there will have to be a change above Baird’s pay grade — in the office of the prime minister himself.
John Baird’s style of diplomacy was based on a short-sighted and divisive view of the world