A QUESTION OF REPUTATION
As Canadians prepare to vote on their country’s leadership, René Bruemmer takes a deeper look at claims that Canada’s international standing has fallen over the last decade.
One does not have to cast a wide net these days to find those who say Canada’s international reputation has dimmed significantly under Stephen Harper’s nine-and-a-half years as prime minister.
Critics say government inaction on climate change, vocal support of Israel, mishandling of the Syrian refugee crisis and cuts to development aid have changed our image from that of a friendly nation that served as an early advocate of peacekeeping and greater environmental stewardship to that of a divisive global polluter focused on its own well-being.
As federal elections loom, former prime ministers from Joe Clark to Jean Chrétien have lamented that Canada has lost its standing in the world. This month, international news magazine The Economist cited a study that found “Canada’s selfimage as a contributor to solving the world’s problems is out of date — by a couple of decades,” due to a drop in aid and defence spending over the last 20 years (which puts the blame on both Conservative and Liberal governments).
Last month, an editorial in Britain’s national daily The Guardian said next month’s elections “offer Canada a chance to return to the country’s best traditions.”
“Internationally (Harper) has made the Canada that begged to differ (with Britain on Suez, on Vietnam with America, for example) and the Canada that was a pillar of peacekeeping and the United Nations a distant memory,” The Guardian wrote. “And his particularly passionate identification with Israel has lost Canada the ‘honest broker’ status that it arguably enjoyed in the Middle East in the past.”
A widely disseminated opinion piece in the New York Times titled “The Closing of the Canadian Mind” by Toronto novelist and political commentator Stephen Marche bemoans the government’s muzzling of federal scientists, particularly those who study global warming issues, to the benefit of the country’s oil industry.
Yet a multitude of international rankings consistently puts Canada among the best places to live in the world, largely due to the perceived strength of our environment, economy and government.
Speak to Canadians living abroad and they’ll tell you residents there have little idea what’s happening with Canadian politics, but that our image remains distinctly positive, a friendly land of mountains, prosperity and icy cold.
“A relatively cuddly, big-little nation where not a lot happens,” is the perception in England, according to Canadian expat Michelle Bobb, who has lived in London for 11 years.
So are we a haven or a pariah? And if the perception is indeed negative, does it matter? Does it have an effect on our economy, our well-being or our influence in the world?
Academic observers and former diplomats say both perceptions, Canada the Good and Canada the Ugly, exist, and the negative does affect the country’s — and Canadians’ — ability to shape the planet.
And negative perceptions do matter, they say, because a country with a knack for peaceful multiculturalism in a time of global ethnic strife should be able to share its knowledge. But it can’t if no one will listen.
A PROUD PAST
In his book How We Lead: Canada in a Century of Change, former prime minister and Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark argues the country has lost its traditional ability to “lead from beside” the more powerful nations of the world. It was a skill that “inspired our signature commitment to building multilateral institutions and was at the heart of the concept of peacekeeping” — allowing a small nation to punch far above its weight in international diplomacy.
Canada helped author the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its foreign minister and future prime minister, Lester B. Pearson, won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in defusing the 1956 Suez Crisis. Canada played a key role in ending apartheid in South Africa, and welcomed 60,000 refugees from Vietnam in 1979 and 1980.
Now, Clark writes, aid to poor foreign nations has been diverted to countries where trade or commercial interests are stronger. Once an environmental leader, today Canada is known as the first nation to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in 2011. The Harper administration argued the protocol was useless because it failed to include the U.S. and China, and would have unfairly hurt Canada’s competitiveness. In 2013 we ranked 58th in terms of number of troops provided to UN peacekeeping missions. In August 2015, Canada contributed 116 military and police personnel to peacekeeping missions. Bangladesh provided 9,432. A former key player in multilateral institutions is now seen as mainly absent at the UN, if not downright divisive, Clark argues.
A country’s foreign policy not only serves its interests at home by enhancing greater peace and prosperity, Clark writes, it serves to define us.
“It can also help us understand who we are as a country. The things we do in the world reflect and affirm who we are at home.”
In 2010, Canada failed to secure a seat on the United Nations Security Council. It was a clear, damning signal of the country’s fading status in the international community, observers say.
THE OTHER SIDE
Not everyone agrees, however. The fact the Harper government won a majority in 2011 showed he represents a change toward more direct action the nation was seeking, National Post columnist Kelly McParland argued after the victory. His administration’s moves on health care, the gun registry, Israel and climate change reflected a break with failed past policies, McParland said.
“Canada’s moderate, middle-ofthe-road approach has long been to align itself with whatever consensus was viewed at the moment as representative of the best intentions,” McParland wrote. “It was an approach crafted to avoid criticism rather than achieve concrete goals. The Harperites have rejected it, and thus earned the enmity of diehard fencesitters. The popularity of the government … suggests many Canadians have had enough of the fence, and no longer see it as dangerous for Canada to have an opinion of its own.”
In a quantitative breakdown of Canada’s international influence, Maclean’s columnist Scott Gilmore wrote last year Canada’s position in the world has improved since Harper took power.
Since 2005, Canada’s exports have increased by eight per cent, foreign direct investment was up 73 per cent, more than a dozen free trade agreements had been penned and the World Economic Forums Global Competitiveness Index had kept Canada stable, at 15th worldwide. Despite Clark’s claims Harper has starved Canada’s diplomatic and development capacity, the Department of Foreign Affairs budget has increased by one-third, Gilmore wrote. And contributions to the UN and other multilaterals were up 73 per cent.
And on several rankings of Canada’s “soft-power” — its reputation among residents of other countries — Canada remains king. We came out in top spot on The Reputation Institute’s 2015 annual ranking for the fourth time in six years based on surveys with 48,000 people living in G8 countries. Canada was seen as the best country in which to live, work or study. In the annual BBC World Service Poll, Canada has ranked among the top-three best viewed countries in the world for the last 10 years.
“I don’t think your average German or Japanese citizen, to the extent that they ever think about Canada, I don’t think (recent policy decisions) make a difference to them,” said Sébastien Jodoin, assistant professor in the faculty of law at McGill University specializing in environmental studies and a faculty associate of the Governance, Environment & Markets Initiative at Yale University. “They probably still think we’re a country that supports peacekeeping, that is reasonable, maybe environmentally friendly. … I don’t buy this proposition that Mr. Harper’s government has harmed Canada’s reputation in general.”
‘THE PERFECT VILLAINS’
There are three key areas, however — climate change, foreign policy and foreign aid — on which it’s clear the Harper government’s actions have damaged our standing and had a negative effect, Jodoin said, particularly among the small but influential world of diplomats, scientists and non-governmental organizations.
“There is no doubt we have a really bad reputation with that segment of the world,” Jodoin said, due to the country’s “complete inaction” on the global warming file and unfulfilled promises to put regulations on the oil and gas industry.
Jodoin argues that Canada’s reputation on climate and oil has had a detrimental effect on the proposed Keystone pipeline project to transport Albertan oil to the U.S., a top priority of the Harper administration. Had Canada made moves to tackle climate change, U.S. President Barack Obama would have had an easier time getting the pipeline approved, Jodoin said. Instead, Keystone has become a symbol of climate inaction and a major target for environmentalists.
Canada’s reputation has also led to a European backlash against Canada’s oilsands that is out of proportion to their actual greenhouse gas effects, Jodoin said. Meanwhile, countries such as the U.S. and Norway, which have active oil drilling economies, face less pressure because they’re seen as being proactive on climate change.
“If the Conservative government had taken a much more measured approach they wouldn’t be dealing with problems getting their oil to market in Europe and the United States,” he said. Instead, “we have played right into the hands of the climate activists. We are the perfect villains.”
Canada’s reputation in foreignaid development circles has waned significantly, while its strident support of Israel’s current policies, a move away from Canada’s traditionally more evenhanded, multilateral approach, led directly to Canada’s losing its seat on the UN’s security council and its ability to influence international security, Jodoin said.
Former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien published a scathing opinion piece last weekend criticizing Harper’s foreign policy. “In fewer than 10 years, the Harper government has tarnished almost 60 years of Canada’s reputation as a builder of peace and progress,” he wrote. Previous Liberal and PC governments worked with all world leaders, including those with whom they disagreed, wrote Chrétien, who recently joined the Liberal campaign trail. Harper’s government, he said, prefers to insult them.
The Conservative Party did not respond to interview requests for this article. Canada’s unwillingness to engage with certain world leaders is a major failing, argues retired Canadian diplomat Jeremy Kinsman, who served as both the Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and Canadian Ambassador to the European Union in a 40-year career with Canada’s foreign service. He also served as an adviser to Joe Clark and former prime minister Brian Mulroney, and counsels Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.
The global public still envies Canada, “generally because we manage to do what everyone else has a problem with, which is manage a pluralistic society inclusively without all of this ethnic bullshit that is going on elsewhere,” Kinsman said.
THE CONSEQUENCES
Foreign governments, however, are aware of changes in Canada and do not see them as positive. And there are consequences.
“Canada once filled a role in the world of a conciliator — we chaired everything, because we weren’t seen to have skin in the game, we weren’t ideological and we had a tremendous reach of contacts because of the Commonwealth and the Francophonie and our Asian population,” Kinsman said. “And we were North America, but not the United States. … The secretarygeneral of the UN could always come to Canada for a solution. Canada’s not there anymore.”
Recent comments by Harper or his cabinet ministers that they have “doubts” about hard-fought international agreements on Ukraine or Iran’s nuclear agreement, expressed to curry favour with political constituencies at home, serve only to hurt Canada’s interests, Kinsman said. “That’s the one thing politicians don’t forgive. That’s what kills you.”
Previous Canadian leaders — Clark, Chrétien, Brian Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau — were known for their relationships with a variety of world leaders.
“When those guys have a different point of view to your perception — you listen to them, and they listen to you, and it’s through that that you get solutions,” Kinsman said. Open dialogue helps our local economy and promotes security at home.
“It’s not a question of being liked, but of belonging to that community that can help in trying to get solutions that the world needs,” Kinsman said. “Canada, and to some extent Montreal, is a microcosm of the world. If people on Park Ave. can get along, they want people elsewhere to get along.”
In fewer than 10 years, the Harper government has tarnished almost 60 years of Canada’s reputation as a builder of peace and progress.