John Baird’s speech on September 14 at the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations may be long on benign self-congratulation, which goes down well when speaking to Canadian audiences. But at least it sheds some light on “the untold story of our government’s principled, values-based foreign policy”.
The bulk of the speech tackles the principles of human rights that Baird and the government intend to tackle together with NGO, bilateral and multilateral partners. The language is similar to statements of the last 30 years, especially the crucial notion that pursuing Canadian values and interests is not contradictory. Baird’s argument that these principles transcend politics sounds strange, coming from one of the Harper Government’s most partisan Rottweilers. But he’s right on this point. If there is opposition to the content of this speech, it will come from members of his own party.
“No matter how virtuous it sounds, a human rights policy can’t stand on its own.”
However, there are three problems with Baird’s presentation, all dealing with some missing elements. None of them concern the fundamental premise—generally accepted since the 1970s—that the Canadian government should be heavily invested in promoting and protecting fundamental human rights around the world.
The first issue is how to give voice to the issue. While Baird argues against selectivity and in favour of direct, tough action, it’s a sentiment easier to proclaim domestically than to achieve in international forums, where a range of nuanced approaches may be required to address a gamut of issues. Baird seems to imply that diplomacy—his vocation for the past year—means not speaking out. But it doesn’t. It means choosing targets carefully, as well as weighing the value of our public words against the likely consequences for those whose human rights we are attempting to safeguard.
This isn’t to contest the notion that Canada should be frank and transparent. But Baird’s intention to “speak truth to power” is the wrong trite aphorism. Human rights violators already know the truth, and they know that we know. The need here is to use Canadian leverage and influence appropriately; otherwise, the government chooses piety over effectiveness.
The second issue is how Canada can assist the process of constructive change. In Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen (to cite Baird’s examples), we need tools to aid governments and civil society. But the Canadian cupboard is getting pretty bare. Rights and Democracy was a Canadian agency created by a previous Conservative government to deliver on these very issues. The Harper Government shut it down (in the city of Baird’s speech). CIDA’s budget has been sliced, diced and limited to a small number of recipients. DFAIT has been emaciated in its diplomatic capacity and the program funds once available for these purposes.
Eventually, the international community begins to compare words with deeds. In the human rights area, the current Canadian government is almost completely below radar range. True, we continue to dole out small amounts in support of good causes. But we are riding the coat-tails of others, particularly the Nordics. We can’t continue to take bathroom breaks when the bills arrive at the table. If human rights is indeed an issue for Baird rather than merely an exercise in domestic diaspora politics, it’s time for an ‘announceable’ about a new fund or program to put a meaningful amount of support into an important cause.
The third issue is perhaps the most difficult one for a Canadian government not much interested in foreign policy, and one that has used much of the past six years frittering away Canadian influence. Simply put, Canada can’t work with its friends and allies, build the necessary coalitions or use our multilateral connections when we’ve allowed our influence to atrophy and wasted our assets, refusing along the way to develop a strategic foreign policy framework that allows Canada to play to its strengths. To achieve results in the area of human rights, we need an effective foreign policy in all of its many dimensions. We now find ourselves, to paraphrase another hoary maxim of the past, punching well below our weight for the first time since the Second World War. And even if we wanted to use our limited and diminishing influence, there are lots of players who no longer want to work with us.
Baird could take a lesson from the Mulroney government. It was effective on the apartheid agenda because by backing the right principles at the right time, it was able to mobilize the full influence and range of Canadian interests. It did so at a time when we had an active development assistance agenda, an engaged international security policy, and dozens of initiatives for bilateral and multilateral engagement that proved useful as vehicles for pursuing partnership on a human rights agenda. To put this conundrum succinctly, we can’t be a one-trick pony. No matter how virtuous it sounds, a human rights policy can’t stand on its own.
Future speeches might well allow for greater modesty in our achievements (although this isn’t normally Baird’s style). If we intend to denounce others, they will be happy to identify some of our continuing shortcomings. And because nothing is as isolating as sanctimonious self-promotion (if that’s indeed the only working principle of this policy), we need to know more about the government’s intentions in years ahead. It has to consist of more than refusing to “shy away from tough conversations”.
The story of the Government’s “principled, values-based foreign policy” is indeed untold. But that’s because the Government hasn’t seen fit to tell us. Now that Baird has let a little light shine in, he owes us more. Let’s see examples of the balances of interests and values in foreign policy. Let’s see the strategic considerations. Let’s see a coherent approach to the UN Human Rights Council (which will have to involve a little less UN-bashing). Baird has captured the right central messages, and he won’t find dissent from others in Parliament. Now it’s time to take the issue to the next level.
