Edmonton Journal (Alberta)
September 16, 2006 Saturday
Final Edition
The world according to Harper: A rookie prime minister who is
learning foreign policy on the fly has a big week ahead of him on the
global stage
by Mike Blanchfield, Ottawa Citizen; CanWest News Service
OTTAWA – Stephen Harper had intended to spend his first hours over
the Atlantic Ocean as Canada’s new prime minister squirrelled away in
the front of his government Airbus with his briefing books, prepping
for meetings with Britain’s Tony Blair, and his first major summit,
the Group of Eight in Russia.
But, as he soon found out, a troubled world does not allow its
leaders such luxuries.
Just before Harper’s plane took off, Israeli bombs tore up the runway
of Beirut International Airport, and a new war was breaking out in
the Middle East — something Harper could not ignore.
Harper soon found himself in a familiar pose of travelling prime
ministers: commenting on a world gone wrong to the journalists at the
back of his plane. He voiced unwavering support for Israel in its
quest to rescue two of its soldiers, kidnapped days earlier along the
Lebanese-Israeli border by the Hezbollah terrorist group. Harper said
Israel had a right to defend itself, and that it had shown a
"measured response" in its attack on Lebanon.
For many, Canada’s 22nd prime minister had redefined his country’s
position towards the intractable Middle East conflict by showing
clear support for one side over the other. Harper was, quite
literally, making foreign policy on the fly.
For all his efforts to focus his agenda on five domestic priorities,
Harper was forced to face a sixth, one that comes with the job of
being prime minister: defining Canada’s role in the world.
AWAITING A GRAND GLOBAL VISION
So far, Harper has offered no grand sweeping vision of Canadian
foreign policy. There have been clues and fragments: the military
mission in Afghanistan and the need to support our allies in the war
on terrorism, especially the U.S.; the need to strengthen that
relationship with Washington after years of tension under the
Liberals and his unequivocal support of Israel in the Middle East.
Along the way, he has lashed out at Iran, snubbed China, and
recognized the Armenian genocide thus angering NATO-ally Turkey. His
government was also one of the first western countries to cut aid to
the Palestinian Authority after the stunning election victory of
Hamas in January.
Overall, this has made Jews and Americans, in particular, quite fond
of Harper, while Arabs, Muslims and peace-loving, war-loathing
Quebecers who kicked the Conservative party’s tires during the last
federal election are getting their backs up.
Former Liberal foreign affairs minister John Manley — who was an
outspoken U.S. supporter when he held the portfolio at the time of
the 9/11 attacks — says Harper has hurt himself in Quebec because of
his foreign policy shift on the Middle East.
Manley said he was pleasantly surprised by how well Harper’s rookie
minority government had been performing — until the Middle East
reared its head.
"When you venture into foreign policy shifts, you want to be really,
really sure that you understand how you got to where we were," says
Manley. "It wasn’t a Liberal policy on the Middle East. It was a
Canadian policy, and the policy that I was responsible for as foreign
minister was in every significant respect the same that it was when
Joe Clark was the foreign minister for Brian Mulroney."
Manley says Harper has broken the most important rule of Canadian
foreign policy: don’t get too close to the U.S. and don’t get too far
away from the U.S.
"That’s unpopular with a lot of Canadians, especially unpopular in
Quebec where (the Conservatives) hoped to get their majority. I think
the war is unpopular in Quebec. All wars have been unpopular in
Quebec," says Manley.
"On the Middle East and Canada-U.S. relations, they kind of plunged
in with gut reactions before really fully understanding what the
delicate balances were."
But changing the way Canada operates in the world is not a bad thing,
according to some experts. How you do it, though, is important.
"We’re missing a policy," says Fen Hampson, director of the Norman
Patterson School of International Affairs at Ottawa’s Carleton
University.
"A policy … that sets clear goals and strategies, has conceptual
underpinnings that explain why we’re doing certain things."
Hampson says Harper’s take on the world could best be defined as
"high-principled multilateralism" because of the close ties he is
fostering with the U.S. through fighting the war on terror in
Afghanistan.
Hampson gives Harper an A for his management of Canada-U.S.
relations, resuscitating them after the rampant anti-Americanism of
the Liberals under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin effectively silenced
Ottawa’s voice in Washington.
But pumping money into the military and making speeches about how
Canada stands with its No. 1 ally and neighbour fighting terrorism in
Afghanistan does nothing to address other issues, such as how he
views the massive economies of China and India, or what Canada really
thinks of the United Nations these days, let alone navigating the
political minefield of the Middle East.
"For the rest of the world: C minus," Hampson says. "He has to look
at his other subjects…. He’s still got a lot of homework to do."
MAJOR SPEECH AT THE UN
That work continues next week when Harper is to give his first major
speech at the United Nations General Assembly. Later in the week, he
will host Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Ottawa. During his short
televised address this week on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11
attacks, Harper indicated he supports the UN, reminding Canadians
their troops are serving on a NATO mission in Afghanistan under the
authority of the world body.
But Harper has given no indication he wants Canada to be a major
player in UN reform, and he’s not one to go around spouting the
"responsibility to protect" doctrine that Martin was so passionate
about, especially when it came to helping the war-ravaged people of
Sudan’s Darfur region.
Some say Harper has also given short shrift to the epic humanitarian
disaster in Darfur.
"Paul Martin took on personally the role of moving Canada into the
dossier of Darfur," says Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire, the retired
general who headed the UN’s ill-fated mission to Rwanda that was
powerless to stop the 1994 genocide there.
In Darfur, a three-year-old conflict that has displaced up to two
million people and claimed at least 200,000 lives, Canada committed
about 100 armoured personnel carriers as part of a commitment of
about $210,000, a pledge that includes $40,000 Harper added in May.
But Dallaire says that since taking power in February, Harper has
dropped the ball on Darfur, silencing Canada as a major international
player.
Allan Rock, Canada’s ambassador to the UN and an active Darfur
advocate, has moved on. And Harper sacked the Darfur advisory team
Martin had created that included Dallaire, fellow Senator Mobina
Jaffer and former UN ambassador Robert Fowler.
"Unceremoniously, sometime in February we were simply dumped by the
current government, no thank you, no nothing, just we don’t need you
anymore," says Dallaire, an author and advocate for Africa.
Harper has also managed to snub and anger the world’s fastest growing
economy — China — first by accusing them of fostering economic
espionage in Canada, and then by ignoring them. As of last week, the
Chinese Embassy in Ottawa was still waiting for their first meeting
with Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.
China is not used to being treated that way. Chretien made building
economic ties with Beijing a cornerstone of his foreign policy,
something Martin carried on. The Liberals were accused of doing this
at the expense of human rights.
But Harper has swung the pendulum back the other way — too far, says
Hampson.
Harper has also managed to alienate Canadian Arabs and Muslims with
his vocal support of the Israeli military’s attack on Lebanon in an
attempt to crush the Hezbollah militia.
A recent poll commissioned by the National Council on Canada-Arab
Relations found that one-third of those surveyed believe Harper
favours Israelis over Arabs. The same poll, done by SES Research,
also found that 54 per cent said they would consider changing their
vote in the next election based on the government’s policy towards
the Middle East.
Says SES president Nik Nanos: "It quite well may be that foreign
policy may play a significant role in the dynamic of the next federal
election."