The Conservatives’ happy warrior for moral clarity
In the Ottawa of Stephen Harper, where the imposing figure of the prime minister casts a shadow that envelops most of his ministers in obscurity, John Baird glowed (and occasionally glowered!). His resignation as foreign affairs minister removes one of the main pillars propping up the Harper government.
John Baird loves politics: He first ran and won provincially in1995, following an apprenticeship as a Conservative supporter that began at age 16 when he was the youngest delegate to attend a provincial leadership convention. He subsequently was a minister in the Ontario government of Mike Harris, and backed Stephen Harper as leader. Running federally in 2006, he was immediately appointed to the senior post of treasury board and steadily moved up the ministerial ladder becoming minister of foreign affairs in 2011.
His tenure at foreign affairs reflected this extensive political resumé and the confidence it engendered in a minister who knew his own mind and was not shy in making others aware of his views. Combative in the House of Commons, forceful in his relations with the public service, pungent in his dealings with the media and enthusiastic before a crowd of Conservative partisans, the overall impression Baird leaves is one of energy. He loved playing the game of politics long after both his friends and opponents were fast asleep.
So his style was distinctive but what mark did he make in foreign policy? My impression is that Baird was a real believer in the concept of a moral foreign policy that puts principles ahead of realpolitik.
There are a host of issues in foreign policy that have to be reconciled — relations with friendly nations, threats from unfriendly ones, questions of trade and questions of rights. Lord Palmerston, the famous British foreign secretary made the case for realpolitik when he said that “nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” Palmerston was opposed by the equally great idealist John Bright, who stated: “I believe there is no permanent greatness to a nation except it be based upon morality. I do not care for military greatness or military renown. I care for the condition of the people among whom I live.”
Baird, too, cares for morality and has been quite prepared to let the chips fall where they may when he thinks there is a principle at stake. To seasoned foreign policy practitioners, this is as disturbing as it is rare. In a 2014 address to the annual John Diefenbaker Defense of Human Rights and Freedom awards ceremony, for example, Baird typically began on a moral premise: “Our country continues to act according to its founding values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
These values, by definition, should not be reserved for a select few, but enjoyed by all. Unfortunately, while these values are universal in application, they do not universally apply.”
The minister certainly did not mince words when advocating a normative foreign policy. He said about Ukraine that “a global Canada is a clear-eyed one . . . we have spoken out against Russia’s reckless provocations at every juncture. We have criticized its undermining of international norms at every summit.” His conclusion: “the Putin regime is not only destabilizing Eastern Europe in a way not seen in decades, but also weakening the very foundation of our rules-based international system.”
While rightly criticizing Russia for its return to old threatening habits, Baird also cuts through the clutter of much comment about the Middle East by making the often forgotten point that Israel is a democracy with the rule of law in a neighbourhood that doesn’t have much of either.
One of Baird’s best moments as foreign minister was when he urged Commonwealth countries to protect the rights of homosexuals, stating publicly that “dozens of Commonwealth countries currently have regressive and punitive laws on the books that criminalize homosexuality . . . it is the role of the state to protect its people, to inform their people about the irreparable harm intolerance and hate cause.”
Baird’s application of norms, as he saw them, can certainly be debated. I think he was wrong to continue to brand Iran as a pariah even as a reformist President Hassan Rouhani tries to moderate past excesses.
But even if occasionally wrong, Baird was never in doubt. He stood for principle, clearly articulated in a portfolio where moral compromises are all too easy. He was a happy warrior for moral clarity in an Ottawa that does not possess much happiness and certainly needs more morality.