How would Canada's foreign policy change?
I'm a taking a course on Canadian foreign policy next term, and the topic of how Canada's foreign policy would change under a Conservative government will certainly be out there, at least until the 23rd of January and perhaps, beyond election day.
Considering that Canada's position in the world is of interest to just about every Canadian (or should be at least!), it's worth wondering what changes a Stephen Harper-led government would initiate.
Here are some of my predictions:
1) Here's the obvious, but it would definitely institute a more sophisticated approach when it comes to our southern neighbour. Harper would not America-bash in order to win votes, and this would not go unnoticed when it comes to trade disputes or other issues that directly effect the livelihoods of millions of Canadians. If he found it feasible, I imagine he would also join BMD (ballistic missile-defense), in order to get a seat on the table when it comes to continental security concerns.
2) To be fair, Canada is already committed to a number of hot zones around the world, but because of a likely increase in military spending, commitments would likely grow both in size and in duration.
3) As has been noted already, Canada has began to engage in a number of combat operations instead of traditional peacekeeping duties, it would only be natural to see these commitments increase as the capabilities of the armed forces increase as well.
4) At the UN, Martin has already instituted a supposedly "even-handed" approach when it comes to Canada's vote on Arab/Israeli issues - i.e. Canada not joining every resolution that comes up condemning Israel for just about every reason imaginable. If Martin hadn't instituted this approach, Harper would have.
5) Speaking of the UN, a Harper-appointed UN ambassador would likely be much more outspoken in favour of reforming the UN... everything from the makeup of the security council, to the placement of dictators on the human rights panel and so on.
6) While being hesitant to backtrack on signed international treaties and agreements, I'd be surprised if Harper carried forward with an internationalist worldview when it came to future agreements. I don't think he'd explicitly scrap Kyoto either.
7) Obviously the biggest question of them all: Iraq? I'd be shocked (and proud) if Harper authorized the deployment of Canadian peacekeepers to Iraq, but it's so unlikely that he would, considering that demagoguery he'd face in the House and even the backlash he'd face at the polls. Harper would only commit to stabilizing Iraq, I imagine, in the medium-range future - i.e. in a couple of years or more, once it seems like far less of an American operation.
8) In addition to Iraq, there will likely be other American attempts at regime-change in the future, like maybe Syria, maybe Iran, maybe even North Korea... who knows. I think Harper would have some leverage in deploying a limited amount of Canadian troops in such an operation since the gazillion arguments that were put forth against invading Iraq were all basically combined and espoused by every anti-Bush person out there, regardless of whether those arguments were realist or dovish. Some of the arguments included "Iran and North Korea are the real threats, Iraq is a distraction!". Since many people who opposed Iraq seemed in favour of going into Iran or North Korea (even though they really weren't, but simply wanted to create a new argument to bash Bush), Iran and North Korea wouldn't be impossible to justify. The decision to join America would also depend on the depth of the international coalition... even if it's the same as last time, i.e. lacking France, Germany and Russia, but including Spain, Britain, Italy and others, it would probably be legitimate enough to persuade a silly electorate that requires the thought of international approval.
Considering that Canada's position in the world is of interest to just about every Canadian (or should be at least!), it's worth wondering what changes a Stephen Harper-led government would initiate.
Here are some of my predictions:
1) Here's the obvious, but it would definitely institute a more sophisticated approach when it comes to our southern neighbour. Harper would not America-bash in order to win votes, and this would not go unnoticed when it comes to trade disputes or other issues that directly effect the livelihoods of millions of Canadians. If he found it feasible, I imagine he would also join BMD (ballistic missile-defense), in order to get a seat on the table when it comes to continental security concerns.
2) To be fair, Canada is already committed to a number of hot zones around the world, but because of a likely increase in military spending, commitments would likely grow both in size and in duration.
3) As has been noted already, Canada has began to engage in a number of combat operations instead of traditional peacekeeping duties, it would only be natural to see these commitments increase as the capabilities of the armed forces increase as well.
4) At the UN, Martin has already instituted a supposedly "even-handed" approach when it comes to Canada's vote on Arab/Israeli issues - i.e. Canada not joining every resolution that comes up condemning Israel for just about every reason imaginable. If Martin hadn't instituted this approach, Harper would have.
5) Speaking of the UN, a Harper-appointed UN ambassador would likely be much more outspoken in favour of reforming the UN... everything from the makeup of the security council, to the placement of dictators on the human rights panel and so on.
6) While being hesitant to backtrack on signed international treaties and agreements, I'd be surprised if Harper carried forward with an internationalist worldview when it came to future agreements. I don't think he'd explicitly scrap Kyoto either.
7) Obviously the biggest question of them all: Iraq? I'd be shocked (and proud) if Harper authorized the deployment of Canadian peacekeepers to Iraq, but it's so unlikely that he would, considering that demagoguery he'd face in the House and even the backlash he'd face at the polls. Harper would only commit to stabilizing Iraq, I imagine, in the medium-range future - i.e. in a couple of years or more, once it seems like far less of an American operation.
8) In addition to Iraq, there will likely be other American attempts at regime-change in the future, like maybe Syria, maybe Iran, maybe even North Korea... who knows. I think Harper would have some leverage in deploying a limited amount of Canadian troops in such an operation since the gazillion arguments that were put forth against invading Iraq were all basically combined and espoused by every anti-Bush person out there, regardless of whether those arguments were realist or dovish. Some of the arguments included "Iran and North Korea are the real threats, Iraq is a distraction!". Since many people who opposed Iraq seemed in favour of going into Iran or North Korea (even though they really weren't, but simply wanted to create a new argument to bash Bush), Iran and North Korea wouldn't be impossible to justify. The decision to join America would also depend on the depth of the international coalition... even if it's the same as last time, i.e. lacking France, Germany and Russia, but including Spain, Britain, Italy and others, it would probably be legitimate enough to persuade a silly electorate that requires the thought of international approval.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
10:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home