FOREIGN POLICY DEBATES WE SHOULD BE HEARING
There’s more to talk about than ISIL and terrorism
Even if substantive foreign policy debates don’t win or lose this election any more decisively than they’ve won or lost others, we’re about to hear a lot of references to ISIL.
When the party leaders argue with each other about Canada’s place in the world, their conversation hopefully won’t be limited to security threats. Those are important, but Canada’s international relationships are marked by plenty of other important challenges, and the leaders ought to talk about them as well.
Here are three now, before the first debate, with a few more to come after it. FOREIGN AID The issues: A Canadian prime minister led the group that proposed the overseas development assistance target that the world still uses today. So, you’d think Canada would meet it.
Thanks in part to Lester B. Pearson, Canada and other countries committed to giving 0.7 per cent of our gross national income (GNI) to overseas development assistance. Nearly five decades and a couple recessions later, the majority of Canadians still support foreign aid. And a slight majority still believes the budget for foreign aid should be increased.
The majority isn’t getting its way. As the University of Ottawa’s Professor Stephen Brown wrote in 2014, “Among the 28 industrialized countries belonging to the Development Assistance Committee, only debt-ridden Portugal cut aid more drastically than Canada (in 2013). Not even Greece, in the throes of austerity, cut aid as deeply in Canada — despite the fact that … we weathered the recent financial crisis better than any other G8 country.”
Canada’s overall aid spending is now lower than it’s been in a decade, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. We part with only 0.24 per cent of our GNI, while the U.K. has met the 0.7 per cent target two years in a row.
And some critics say that Canada has made some cuts underhandedly. In 2012-13, for instance, it effectively pocketed about 10 per cent of what it budgeted for aid.
But the issue with Canadian foreign aid isn’t just how much we give: it’s also why we give.
Brown and other experts say that Canada’s motives for aid are unclear. We’re emphasizing poverty reduction less and commercial interests more by, for example, prioritizing work with mining companies in middle-income countries in the Americas over work with NGOs in poorer African states. The questions: Leaders ought to spell out why they think aid is important, or defend why it shouldn’t be a priority.
Who should benefit from aid? Why has Canada missed the 0.7 per cent target so dramatically? Why or why not might Canada firmly commit to meeting the target in the future?
If Canada continues to miss the target, what might be the long-term consequences for our country? For the world?
Why or why not should Canada prioritize extreme poverty? What is the proper role of private sector actors in aid projects, if any? Is it important that Canada give the amount that it promises? And what are the leaders’ broader visions for how Canadian foreign aid can be most effective and ethical?
INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
The issues: Canada’s relationship with international justice is complicated, and three complications are especially worth talking about: the state of Canada’s federal War Crimes Program, Canada’s marginalization of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Canada’s making it very difficult for survivors of atrocities to seek compensation through its courts.
First, Canada doesn’t prioritize the investigation and prosecution of war crimes within the country. More than 1,000 suspected war criminals live in Canada. Hundreds have been deported from Canada. Only two have been tried in Canada.
The budget of Canada’s federal War Crimes Program hasn’t increased since the program was first introduced 10 years ago, and the vast majority of its budget — over 90 per cent — goes to shipping suspected war criminals off to other countries, not investigating and putting war criminals on trial.
Second, Canada has actively tried to marginalize the ICC. Then-Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, remarkably, threatened “consequences” for Palestine if it went to the court. Which is to say, a representative from a liberaldemocratic state openly tried to intimidate another actor so that it wouldn’t seek justice through a nonviolent liberal institution.
It’s the type of behaviour that may hurt both the state and the institution.
Finally, Canada’s State Immunity Act prevents most atrocity survivors from seeking compensation from governments that victimized them. This is despite the efforts of some advocates and parliamentarians to create a human rights exception to Canada’s general rule that you can’t sue a foreign government.
Canada does, however, now eliminate immunity when terrorism has been committed. Just not when genocide has been committed. Or torture. Or war crimes. Or crimes against humanity. The questions: The leaders should answer if and how they would support justice for atrocity survivors.
Why or why not should those who commit atrocities face prosecution? What sort of political or financial support should be given to the young ICC, if any, to help it grow into a strong and widely respected institution? Should Canada increase funding for the federal War Crimes Program, and how should its funding be used?
What is the logic of Canada allowing civil suits against states that sponsor terrorism, while generally granting immunity to states that commit genocide, torture and war crimes? And what are the leaders’ broader visions for how Canada might lead or step away from international justice? The issues: The community of Canadians who live overseas is big, and might be getting bigger. At last estimate, it was nearly a tenth the size of Canada’s population, according to the Asia Pacific Foundation (AFP).
AFP surveys reveal that the majority of this significant demographic intend to return to Canada, and that the majority of Canadians within Canada believe that expats should have the same rights as all citizens.
Size and sentiment hasn’t completely protected Canada’s expat population. Despite their large numbers and strong attachments to Canada, many expats say that Canadian policies treat them like second-class citizens: their votes have been restricted and their ability to pass their citizenship to their descendants has been limited.
The concern is that we may cut off our expatriate citizens to spite our country. Scholars, foreign correspondents, business people and aid workers overseas may be uniquely positioned to bridge Canada with the countries they live in.
By snipping some of their strongest ties of citizenship, Canada could risk letting an enormous source of information, advocacy and informal ambassadorship float away. The questions: Leaders ought to explain to Canadians whether they’ll encourage Canadian expats to serve Canadian interests while overseas, and how they might go about doing that.
How could Canada support professional networks between Canadian expats and Canadians back home? How might it partner with Canadian post-secondary institutions to stay connected to Canadian alumni abroad? When Canadians return to Canada, how could their transition into the job market be more seamless? And what are the leaders’ broader visions for the expat community: why should they be actively distanced from Canada or why should they be brought closer?
The party leaders may mention none of these issues while they debate each other. Still, the rest of us can always think about them when we vote.
Despite their large numbers and strong attachments to Canada, many expats say that Canadian policies treat them like second-class citizens.