Foreign Policy Failure

Canada’s inability to win a seat on the UN Security Council has exposed our deep internal divisions.

Michael Ignatieff must be an extremely powerful man. According to Conservative spokesperson Dimitri Soudas, in a matter of days Mr. Ignatieff single-handedly convinced the representatives of over 50 countries from around the world to vote for Portugal – and against Canada – during the second round of the recent UN Security Council elections.

Soudas’ suggestion – echoed by Canada’s typically more reasonable Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon – is just one example of a decline in diplomatic behaviour that was all too typical in the events leading up to Canada’s humiliating defeat in its quest for a Security Council seat on October 12.

Ottawa’s commitment to stand for election to the Security Council for 2011-12 was made under the Chrétien Liberals nearly a decade ago. Back then, no effort was made to engage the Canadian public, or the opposition, in the diplomatic effort (unlike the current situation in New Zealand, where the government has called upon the country to unite in support of its Council bid).

When the Conservatives took power in 2006, Canada’s commitment to the Security Council seat became even less clear.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, himself no great supporter of multilateralism, was not initially interested in the forthcoming Security Council election. Tasked with speaking truth to power, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade proved unable – or unwilling – to explain the diplomatic implications of an unsuccessful bid to Harper.

Once the Conservative government decided to engage more seriously in the quest for a Council seat, it adopted its predecessor’s disinclination to reach out to the opposition for support.

Finally, in the weeks leading up to the election, Mr. Ignatieff’s Liberals injected partisan domestic politics into the campaign when they joined radical special interest groups in questioning the suitability of the current government to represent Canada on the Security Council.

Exercises in poor judgment were not confined to Canada’s foreign policy elite.

In New York, having snubbed Ottawa in the first round of Council elections – arguably a legitimate rebuke to a Canadian prime minister who had skipped last year’s meeting of the General Assembly for a photo opportunity at a Tim Horton’s at home – representatives of over 100 countries disregarded their own interests as members of an international community of states by shunning the seventh largest contributing member to the UN’s budget.

Instead, they elected a country whose ongoing economic struggles will prevent it from making anything but a rhetorical contribution to international peace and security over the next two years.

The Canadian government immediately absolved itself of any responsibility for its failed election bid by exaggerating the impact of the intervention of the official opposition. The Liberals responded by attacking the Conservatives for blaming others for their own diplomatic shortcomings.

Thus marked the end of one of the most acrimonious, short-sited, and depressing diplomatic series of events in Canada’s history, leaving Canadian and international leaders alike with an opportunity to reassess their approaches to world affairs going forward.

In Canada, members of the offices of the prime minister and of the leader of the opposition must acknowledge that foreign policy is not just a game to be played to build domestic political support.

Ottawa’s electoral defeat will result in exclusion from the most powerful Security Council in the UN’s history. Regardless of what one thinks of the organization itself, missing the opportunity for regular access to high-level leaders from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, Germany, Brazil, South Africa, India, Nigeria, and Colombia will have significant diplomatic and strategic implications.

As for the members of the international community who ignored Canada’s historical and contemporary contributions to global peace and security to make a political point, the isolation of a country whose public service negotiators are among the world’s most experienced and well-respected can only set back efforts to build a credible global governance regime.

In the end there are no winners, only hope that the consequences of such immature behaviour will serve as a wake-up call to a country, and an international community, in desperate need of a change of attitude.