TONY BURMAN

Why Harper is, reluctantly, following in Obama’s footsteps on Cuba,

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s graceless encounter with Cuban President Raul Castro at last weekend’s historic Summit of the Americas in Panama reminded me of something.

We need to keep telling our grandchildren that, yes, there was a time — long, long ago, perhaps — when Canada stood as a proud, independent and constructive presence in the world. We saw it in 1959 when, in spite of intense American pressure, Canada — also led then by a Conservative government — was one of only two countries in the hemisphere to maintain diplomatic relations with Cuba following the Cuban Revolution.

We saw it again in 1970 when Canada became one of the first western countries to recognize the People’s Republic of China.

And we saw it on display for decades — until Harper’s first election in 2006 — when Canada skilfully gained the respect and friendship of all sides in the Middle East by acting as a genuine “honest broker” instead of being an unquestioning cheerleader for only one side.

But what did we see last weekend? In terms of world history, we saw a lot. By any measure, it rarely gets better. After more than 50 years of bitterness between the two countries, the presidents of the United States and Cuba met for the first time, and shook hands in friendship.

It was a historic reconciliation, ushering in a dramatic new era for the United States and Latin America. Depending on the fate of the interim nuclear deal with Iran, it may well go down as President Barack Obama’s most important foreign policy achievement.

But what did we see regarding Harper? Well, not much actually. In fact, if it weren’t for the Cubans, it would have been virtually nothing at all.

In spite of a history of close bilateral relations, Harper has never been a fan of the Cuban leadership and he doesn’t hide it. He had previously opposed Cuba’s presence at the Summit of the Americas because Cuba was not a “democracy.” This reasoning conveniently slides by the fact that Harper has warmly supported many countries that are criminally undemocratic.

Before the summit, there was curiosity about whether Harper and the Cuban president would meet. But the Canadian press corps at the summit was told nothing about it — until after the meeting had happened. In terms of media protocol, that is virtually unheard of.

Eventually, a photograph of that awkward encounter surfaced, but it didn’t come from the Prime Minister’s Office, as one would expect. It was posted on the website of that other bastion of free expression — Cuba’s Communist Party Central Committee. Viva la revolucion.

During Harper’s term as prime minister, Canadian tourism to Cuba has remained high, with more than a million Canadians visiting each year. This is about 40 per cent of Cuba’s foreign tourism. But Canada’s trade with Cuba has been stagnant, and the Harper government has been hostile to the Cuban regime. This has reinforced a view among Latin American and Caribbean governments that Canada has effectively turned its back on the region.

In remarks after his meeting with Castro last Saturday, the prime minister suggested this approach may change: “We’re at a point where an engagement is more likely to lead us to where we want to go than continued isolation.”

Harper’s sudden turnaround is not difficult to understand. His government long ago squandered whatever goodwill Canada had accumulated with Latin America and the Caribbean. Harper’s obvious indifference toward Latin Americans has only been made worse by his hypocritical hectoring to them about the merits of democracy.

But the real game-changer was Obama’s dramatic overture toward Cuba. Unless Harper reversed himself, it would have left Canada’s prime minister as the last remaining “Cold Warrior” in the Americas among government leaders, and he knew how ridiculous that position would be. Harper is no fool.

An optimist could wonder whether these developments might usher in a new glorious era between Canada and Latin America. Or even whether Harper’s 11th-hour infatuation with “engagement” over “continued isolation” may be applied to other foreign policy challenges — such as Iran.

But I wouldn’t bet on it. If we have learned anything about Stephen Harper since 2006, it is that politics, not principle, determine his actions. Tony Burman, former head of CBC News and Al Jazeera English, teaches journalism at Ryerson University. Reach him @TonyBurman or at tony.burman@gmail.com.