The Mark 2010

Canada isn't big enough to force its interests on others. It needs a system of international rules and customs that is predictable and transparent.

“Our bankers didn’t do anything wrong. Why should they have to pay?” It’s the rallying cry of Canada’s federal government, and it’s gained popular support across the country.

And why shouldn’t it? The argument is delightfully simple. Those who made the mess have the responsibility to clean it up.

That simplicity is also evident in Ottawa’s current position on Afghanistan: we’ve done our share; it’s time for others to do theirs.

The tenor of both arguments reflects a government that sees itself in a position of strength: Since Canada’s banks survived the great recession virtually unscathed, Ottawa has the right to campaign forcefully against a bank tax. Since Canadian soldiers have made such an outstanding contribution in Kandahar, no country has the right to ask them for anything more.

Canada must be heard and listened to, it seems, whether it acts cooperatively or not.

This “Canada first” attitude is hardly original. “No more helpful fixers” was Pierre Trudeau’s trademark line when he first took office. Ottawa had spent enough time sacrificing for others, he believed; it was time to look out for its own interests.

It wasn’t long before Trudeau announced significant cuts to Canada’s commitments to NATO and to international diplomacy.

Like Trudeau before him, Prime Minister Harper’s actual policy positions are not unreasonable. The bank tax would be punitive for Canadian banks, and Canada’s soldiers have indeed already sacrificed disproportionately in Afghanistan. But the diplomatic approach that the Harper government has chosen to express its views through could threaten Canada’s long-term interests.

There are three problems.

First, while the in-your-face diplomacy is a domestic rallying cry, it is not suited to international negotiations in an interdependent world. Essentially, Ottawa is putting forward take-it-or-leave-it positions on global issues that Canada cannot in fact leave behind.

The bank tax discussion will continue even if Canada refuses to participate. NATO will remain in Afghanistan even if the Canadian Forces disengage. Threatening to walk away merely limits Canada’s ability to shape global outcomes in its favour.

Second, demonstrating political inflexibility – what proponents of the government’s strategy might alternatively label as firmness and conviction – implicitly condones similar behaviour by Canada’s allies. If Canada can play hardball on the bank tax, why shouldn’t Japan do the same on mad cow disease? Or South Korea on automotive subsidies?

Third, the overly simplistic presentation of Canada’s national interests sends the wrong message to the Canadian public.

Contrary to what Ottawa has implied, it is not unusual for smaller powers to do more than their fair share to promote a stable international order. Canada contributes disproportionately to the budget of the United Nations, for example. In spite of running a deficit and carrying a large national debt, it provides foreign aid to countries in need. It accepts refugees regardless of their ability to contribute immediately to the economic advancement of Canadian society.

Smaller countries like Canada are not powerful enough to promote their interests by sheer force. As a result, they prosper within a system of international rules and customs that is predictable and transparent. Rules prevent the greatest powers from imposing their will on those around them, and create opportunities for modest-sized powers to exert influence.

Canadian banks have generally benefited from an international economic system governed by rules that have been agreed upon by all of the leading states. And Canada has made a difference to the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan through its membership in NATO.

What is most frustrating is that the Harper government is aware of Canada’s national interests. It recognizes that Canadian unilateralism is poor public policy. It is quietly lobbying for a globally agreed upon alternative to the bank tax and might well be investigating prospective compromises on such an abrupt departure from Afghanistan.

But when it comes to the rhetorical excesses and the politicization of foreign policy at home, it can’t seem to help itself.

Canadians are often critical of the great powers, and for good reason. Bullying is rarely effective in world affairs, particularly in the long term. It follows that at a time when international cooperation is more important than ever, Ottawa should step off the bully pulpit and show greater humility.

This article was first published in Embassy on June 2, 2010.