PM should rethink policy of disengagement

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is boycotting next month’s Commonwealth summit in Sri Lanka. Harper laid the marker two years ago, warning that if the human rights record in that war-torn country did not improve, he would not be there for the meeting.

Promise made, promise kept, and indeed there is something to be said for that kind of moral certitude. The problem with Harper is that he is not an equal-opportunity moralist. And even then, it is unclear if the policy of disengagement is effective.

Harper will not go to Sri Lanka, but he went to the DR Congo — a country with one of the worst human rights records in the world — for last year’s Francophonie summit. This is a country where, according to the UN, 22 per cent of men and 30 per cent of women are victims of war rape. If the Commonwealth panders to human rights abusers, what does Harper think the Francophonie does? And can anyone say that China, Canada’s new friend, is a paragon of human rights?

The Sri Lankan boycott comes on the heels of Harper’s decision to skip the UN General Assembly meeting in New York last month, all part of a new, muscular, in-your-face foreign policy that is redefining Canada’s international relations. Under the new policy, Canada takes a firm stand on issues based on what it believes to be in line with its values, and doesn’t really care what anyone thinks. The policy allows both Harper and Foreign Minister John Baird to speak plainly and candidly, without any consideration for the usual niceties of international diplomacy.

An outcome of this policy is a demonstrable antipathy toward the UN and now the Commonwealth, organizations that the government apparently sees as clubs for assorted dictators and tyrants. As a result, Harper — and by extension, the government — are increasingly turning away from engaging with these bodies.

One can understand how jarring it must be to sit across the table

What Harper doesn’t understand, or perhaps chooses to ignore, is that the world is not all made up of countries like Canada

from someone such as Robert Mugabe, or listen to the rants of former Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But that is the point of diplomacy. What Harper doesn’t understand, or perhaps chooses to ignore, is that the world is not all made up of countries like Canada. The United Nations organization is not the United Nations of World Democracies. It is not the Friends of Canada. It is an organization that brings together countries and peoples with different values and norms, some of which we may find utterly disagreeable. The challenge for countries like Canada is not to walk away from disagreeable leaders, but to use the power of their argument and values to change minds. How do we really help Sri Lanka turn away from abuses, or indeed lift up the Tamils, if we refuse to engage? Why do we engage other countries with terrible human rights records, but boycott Sri Lanka and the Commonwealth?

If the government believes the U.N., the Commonwealth and La Francophonie are worth belonging to — as it appears to do — then we should attend and fully participate in their meetings. We will not succeed by disengaging.